mirror of
https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent.git
synced 2026-06-22 10:32:00 +00:00
d799284b15
The optional-skills copy was still the v1.0.0 constraint-dispatch skill (SKILL.md + full-prompt-library.md only). This brings it up to the current tool: a situation-routed library of 22 named ideation methods drawn from working artists, scientists, designers, and writers. SKILL.md becomes a 4-step router (extract PHASE/DOMAIN/SPECIFICITY signals → apply overrides → route phase-then-domain → resolve ambiguity), with anti-slop operating rules and an anti-default check. Adds: - 22 method files under references/methods/ — oblique-strategies (Eno/Schmidt), oulipo, scamper, lateral-provocations (de Bono), triz (Altshuller), leverage-points (Meadows), pattern-languages (Alexander), compression-progress (Schmidhuber), analogy-and-blending, pataphysics, first-principles, polya, biomimicry, volume-generation, creative-discipline, premortem-and-inversion, defamiliarization, derive-and-mapping, affinity-diagrams, jobs-to-be-done, story-skeletons, chance-and-remix. Each: when/when-not, the actual cards/principles/operators, a procedure, a worked example, anti-slop notes. - references/method-catalog.md (index + when-to-use), heuristics.md (extended decision tree), anti-slop.md (rules applied to every output), exercises.md (time-boxed exercises). - full-prompt-library.md restructured into domain-affinity sections (general / software / physical / social / lists) so the no-direction default isn't developer-biased. Frontmatter: name aligned to directory slug (creative-ideation, folding in the fix from #18084); version 2.0.0→2.1.0; platforms field preserved. Original wttdotm-derived constraint dispatch is kept as the default path. Supersedes #19295 (which targeted the pre-move skills/ path). Co-authored-by: SHL0MS <SHL0MS@users.noreply.github.com>
64 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
64 lines
3 KiB
Markdown
# Compression Progress
|
||
|
||
Jürgen Schmidhuber, *Formal Theory of Creativity* (1990–2010). Beauty = compressibility given prior knowledge. Interestingness = the *change* in compressibility as you learn. A worthwhile project is one that, on completion, would compress your model of the world.
|
||
|
||
## Core formula
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
I(D, O(t)) = B(D, O(t)) − B(D, O(t−1))
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
Interestingness = first derivative of beauty over time. Pure noise (no learnable pattern) and fully-known pattern (already compressed) are both boring. Beauty lives between.
|
||
|
||
## When to use
|
||
|
||
- Picking a research question
|
||
- Selecting between candidate projects ("which would teach me the most?")
|
||
- Diagnosing aesthetic dissatisfaction ("this is fine but not interesting")
|
||
- Choosing what to read
|
||
|
||
## Don't use when
|
||
|
||
- Fast generation (this is reflective, not generative)
|
||
- Group decisions where audiences differ (single-observer model)
|
||
|
||
## Procedure
|
||
|
||
### For picking a research question
|
||
1. List 5–10 things you currently *cannot predict well* in your domain. Be specific: not "the future of AI", but "why X 7B model trained with technique A performs worse than Y 1.3B model with technique B on benchmark Z".
|
||
2. For each: would understanding it compress only this fact, or re-organize a broader domain? Prefer the latter.
|
||
3. For each: is the answer learnable from where you are? (Not noise; not too far above your prior.)
|
||
4. Pick the highest learnable compression-progress potential.
|
||
|
||
### For evaluating ideas
|
||
For each candidate, ask:
|
||
- What would I understand differently if this were complete?
|
||
- Would that understanding compress this domain or only this idea?
|
||
- Is it currently learnable from where I am?
|
||
|
||
Highest answers across all three = pursue.
|
||
|
||
### For aesthetic critique
|
||
Where is the work entirely predictable? (too known) Entirely unpredictable? (too random) Where does it sit in the learnable-but-not-yet-learned zone? Strong work has more of the third.
|
||
|
||
## Worked example
|
||
|
||
User has three options:
|
||
- A. Build a habit tracker.
|
||
- B. Build a tool that explains why a `git rebase --interactive` produced its conflicts, by reconstructing the commit graph mid-rebase.
|
||
- C. Read Lacan.
|
||
|
||
Analysis:
|
||
- A: no compression progress; user already has model of habit trackers. Reject.
|
||
- B: high. User doesn't currently have strong model of how rebase constructs intermediate states; building this requires learning that, and the resulting model re-organizes how the user thinks about all VCS internals.
|
||
- C: real compression-progress potential, but prior is missing. Long path to get there. Worthwhile if on the prerequisite track; otherwise read Žižek/Bruce Fink first as scaffolding.
|
||
|
||
Recommend B.
|
||
|
||
## Anti-slop notes
|
||
|
||
- "Compression progress" as slogan ≠ doing the analysis. State the actual model gaps you'd close.
|
||
- Don't claim every idea has high compression-progress. Most don't. The framework is useful because it discriminates.
|
||
- Don't impose this lens on artistic work without acknowledging its limits.
|
||
|
||
Source: people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html
|