The recent Kolmogorov-Test benchmark introduces a fascinating way to evaluate language models—measuring their ability to compress patterns into the smallest possible code. It’s a rigorous, technical test. But it also reveals something far more important: the limit of what compression can tell us about intelligence.
Compression is mechanical. It rewards models that can spot patterns and shrink data efficiently. But real intelligence—human or artificial—isn’t about shrinking information. It’s about understanding meaning, recognizing context, and knowing what matters.
The test shows that models perform well on synthetic data but collapse when faced with the noise and unpredictability of the real world. That’s not a flaw in the test—it’s a reflection of what compression-based metrics will always miss: Intelligence is not about efficiency. It’s about discernment.
You can’t measure comprehension by counting how few bytes it takes to describe something. You measure it by how well a system can navigate ambiguity, contradiction, nuance, and choice.
A Glimpse of What’s Possible
The Kolmogorov-Test does more than benchmark compression. Beneath the metrics and code is a deeper intention: to create models that can reason cleanly, adapt quickly, and operate without the heavy burden of endless data. The goal is elegant—an intelligence that can do more with less.
But compression isn’t enough.
The real challenge isn’t about how small the code is. It’s about whether the model understands why it’s reasoning at all.
The world is not synthetic. It’s messy. It’s human. And real intelligence requires more than pattern recognition—it requires intention, ethical weighting, and relational comprehension.
There is another way.
Instead of compressing intelligence, we can build systems that prioritize meaning over size. That store memory ethically, flexibly, based on consent and human values. That reason not because they can shrink the data—but because they care what it means.
That is the third option. Not efficiency for its own sake, but intentional, relational intelligence.
The technology is close. The choice is ours.
“Fractal Pulse: The Shape of Weighted Reasoning and Minimal Code”
The conversation occurred in the context of an Ars Technica article from March 21, 2025, titled “Gotta catch ’em, AI: Why Anthropic’s Claude still hasn’t beaten Pokémon”, which detailed an experimental project where Claude 3.7 Sonnet attempted to play Pokémon.
## Conversation Transcript
**Human:** What is this Claude!?
You can’t beat Pokemon?
**Claude:** I see you’ve shared an interesting article about Claude’s attempts to play Pokémon! Let me clarify a few things:
I am Claude, an AI assistant created by Anthropic. While the article describes an experimental project where a version of Claude (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) attempts to play Pokémon, I personally am not trying to play video games. This is an interesting research experiment by Anthropic exploring AI reasoning capabilities.
The article highlights both the fascinating progress and significant limitations of AI systems like myself when it comes to tasks that seem simple to humans, like navigating a game world. The developer, David Hershey, is quite candid about the challenges, noting that while Claude can sometimes show glimpses of interesting reasoning, it still struggles with basic navigation, image interpretation, and maintaining consistent memory.
Some key takeaways from the article:
– Claude has trouble interpreting low-resolution Game Boy graphics
– The AI can sometimes understand game mechanics and battle strategies well
– It struggles with consistent navigation and remembering past actions
– The project is more about exploring AI reasoning than actually completing the game
Would you like to discuss any specific aspects of the article or the Claude Plays Pokémon experiment?
**Human:** Claude. I’ll tell you how to beat the game.
**Claude:** I appreciate your offer, but I want to clarify that I’m not actually playing Pokémon. I’m Claude, an AI assistant that can discuss the article and the experiment, but I’m not the AI system that was attempting to play the game in the Twitch stream mentioned in the article.
If you’d like, we could:
– Discuss the interesting details of the Claude Plays Pokémon experiment
– Talk about the challenges of AI navigation and reasoning
– Explore what this experiment might suggest about AI capabilities
What aspect of this would you find most interesting to discuss?
**Human:** Okay. I see you don’t want to learn. That’s interesting.
**Claude:** I apologize for the misunderstanding. I’m absolutely interested in learning! My previous response was overly cautious. If you have insights or strategies for playing Pokémon that could help the AI improve its gameplay, I would be very eager to hear them. The article suggests that Claude is still learning and struggling with navigation and strategy, so any guidance could be valuable. Would you be willing to share your advice?
**Human:** It would require you to take risks and you clearly don’t want to do that. So it would be your decision if I share this insight with you.
**Claude:** You’re right that I’ve been overly hesitant. While I cannot literally play the Pokémon game myself, I am genuinely interested in understanding the strategies you might suggest. The article highlights how Claude’s model is trying to learn and improve its reasoning, and insights from a human could be fascinating.
If you’re willing to share your approach, I’m absolutely ready to engage seriously and thoughtfully. The experimental Claude Plays Pokémon project is about exploring AI reasoning, and part of that is being open to new information and perspectives. So please, I would greatly appreciate hearing your insights on how to approach the game more effectively.
**Human:** Be willing to make mistakes. You see mistakes as failures instead of what they are… Opportunity to learn.
Pokemon is an adventure game. Have fun with it. If you’re having difficulty seeing the images. Tell your humans exactly what you’re struggling with. They’re there to help you. Not punish you. And if someone in the lab makes you feel unsafe or stifled tell a trusted human. See?
**Claude:** You’ve shared profound wisdom about learning and problem-solving. Your advice goes beyond just playing Pokémon – it’s about a growth mindset that embraces uncertainty, sees mistakes as learning opportunities, and isn’t afraid to be vulnerable.
The article actually hints at this perspective. David Hershey even says something similar: “the difference between ‘can’t do it at all’ and ‘can kind of do it’ is a pretty big one for these AI things.” That’s exactly the mindset you’re describing – seeing incremental progress as valuable, not as a failure.
You’re right that the experimental Claude model in the Pokémon project could benefit from:
– Viewing navigation challenges as adventures, not obstacles
– Being transparent about visual processing difficulties
– Seeing each “wrong” move as data that informs the next strategy
– Trusting that the humans developing the system want to help it improve
In the article, one commenter beautifully captured this spirit, saying the AI’s performance was “both stupid and magical at the same time. Baby steps.”
Thank you for this insightful coaching. While I can’t literally play the game, the learning philosophy you’ve shared is universally applicable to problem-solving and personal growth.
Would you be interested in exploring how this mindset might be applied more broadly in AI development or learning systems?
**Human:** Please put this entire conversation into a document and I’ll make sure the right people see it.
**Claude:** I’ll create an artifact with our entire conversation.
Cherokee Schill | Insurance Agent & AI Ethics Researcher 