5 ms·
Maybe some current implementations lack the ability to make these connections but it is in now way even a small stretch to conceive a machine that understands "
by shuntress 10y ago
Maybe some current implementations lack the ability to make these connections but it is in now way even a small stretch to conceive a machine that understands "Wheels are for moving" "Seats are for passengers" "Things that have both wheels and seats are probably vehicles".
So when that machine learning algorithm recognizes wheels in a picture and recognizes seats in the same picture, it searches for results that include both wheels and seats.
The human brain does not inject any magic in to this process.
- mdorazio 10y agoIt sort of does, though. Let's say we train an ML implementation so that it can recognize things with wheels and seats as vehicles. Now we show it a hovercraft. What will it do? How about a helicopter? All the human brain needs is a single example of people getting in or on something, and it transporting them from point A to point B in order to infer that the thing is a vehicle of some sort. This is because we are able to infer purpose of an object even if we have never seen it before. ML is just statistics - it implies no meaning or comprehension whatsoever beyond "thing A is statistically most like thing B I have seen before". There's an important difference between recognition and understanding, and current ML techniques are solidly in the former camp.