aalluubbaa t1_je6ogsy wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in The argument that a computer can't really "understand" things is stupid and completely irrelevant. by hey__bert
How do you come up with this conclusion? I don’t know how you do that but if you use the same criteria, I don’t think humans are trained with less.
Even for things as simple as image recognition. Humans have the advantage of looking at an object from a continuous,infinitely high res with continuous frames as you move around to look at the object from a 3d surrounding. We also experience gravity, air flow, smell, relative size and a lot that I may miss. So how do you compare a child who see a banana in real life with multiple senses to deep learning models which just see pixels?
[deleted] t1_je83ndz wrote
It’s a fair point, but I’ve seen others do the math, and the training sets are bigger than the amount of data human senses could deliver by, say, age 3, by something like 1000x.
For example, each time you move your eyes and then focus, that’s one new “clear” image. Your brain isn’t really getting a video stream. And only the fovea area is high-res. So you can calculate how many times a 3 year old child could have moved their eyes since birth, and it’s WAY lower than the 10 billon images that the big models are trained on, etc.
The brain is definitely doing something super efficient. Once we figure out what, AI performance will just explode even further.
[deleted] t1_je6p0j4 wrote
[deleted]
dr_doug_exeter t1_je6wxbf wrote
define "real intelligence" then. Sounds like you are describing something beyond what would normally be considered "intelligent".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments