4 ms·

>Humans usually can't do your 2. I think we do. We see a building we've never seen before and we know it's a building because it has certain features that we u

>Humans usually can't do your 2. I think we do. We see a building we've never seen before and we know it's a building because it has certain features that we use to classify it as a building. The examples aren't scarce. I also think a good indicator of us doing it is the use of "y" and "ish" and "sort". As for sthlm's point 2: >2. The software can't recognize a feather if it's never seen a feather like that. It's not a sentient being. This is Asimo in 2009: https://youtu.be/6rqO5eiP7_k?t=5m24s https://youtu.be/6rqO5eiP7_k?t=5m24s

msinclair 10y ago
When it comes to abstraction from a simple rendering – no shading, no sense of depth, no discernible dimensions – it's hard to extrapolate features. I feel there is an immense difference between recognizing simple sketches and deriving what an object is based on extended characteristics. The video you linked furthers that by showing that ASIMO was using three-dimensional observation to calculate certain features and ascertain what that object was.
- gcp 10y ago
  The abstract drawings benefit a lot from the limited selection and the huge implicit context. If you'd give these doodles to people that are not Western males it'll do a lot worse. Someone already pointed out it doesn't recognize woman's shoes.
- laumars 10y ago
  Humans frequently misrecognise sketches too.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    If you've ever played pictionary you'll see the level of abstraction we can manage is remarkable too.
    - msinclair 10y ago
      Familiarity with teammates may factor into that as well, partially from having unspoken frames of reference to infer from. It is unmistakable how much the difficulty level ramps up when you're paired with those of an unlike-nature to you. Sometimes that level of abstraction is taken way outside of generic context clues.
    - laumars 10y ago
      It is but we've also had decades of practice. What scares the most about AI isn't how advanced computers can become but how slow we are to learn in comparison.
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        Actually in mind when I was mentioning that was playing a game I coined "foot pictionary" (we've also played "blind pictionary") with kids ages ~6 to 10yo. We use very generic "words" (eg egg, tree, bike, cloud, plate). When you're using your foot to draw you really have to distill down to the essence of the item. Yes there is a deal of guessing but in some way the image (however unlike the object) has to have some element of the Platonic nature, if you will, of the object being drawn. Fun!

msinclair 10y ago

When it comes to abstraction from a simple rendering – no shading, no sense of depth, no discernible dimensions – it's hard to extrapolate features. I feel there is an immense difference between recognizing simple sketches and deriving what an object is based on extended characteristics. The video you linked furthers that by showing that ASIMO was using three-dimensional observation to calculate certain features and ascertain what that object was.

gcp 10y ago
The abstract drawings benefit a lot from the limited selection and the huge implicit context. If you'd give these doodles to people that are not Western males it'll do a lot worse. Someone already pointed out it doesn't recognize woman's shoes.
laumars 10y ago
Humans frequently misrecognise sketches too.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  If you've ever played pictionary you'll see the level of abstraction we can manage is remarkable too.
  - msinclair 10y ago
    Familiarity with teammates may factor into that as well, partially from having unspoken frames of reference to infer from. It is unmistakable how much the difficulty level ramps up when you're paired with those of an unlike-nature to you. Sometimes that level of abstraction is taken way outside of generic context clues.
  - laumars 10y ago
    It is but we've also had decades of practice. What scares the most about AI isn't how advanced computers can become but how slow we are to learn in comparison.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      Actually in mind when I was mentioning that was playing a game I coined "foot pictionary" (we've also played "blind pictionary") with kids ages ~6 to 10yo. We use very generic "words" (eg egg, tree, bike, cloud, plate). When you're using your foot to draw you really have to distill down to the essence of the item. Yes there is a deal of guessing but in some way the image (however unlike the object) has to have some element of the Platonic nature, if you will, of the object being drawn. Fun!