I'm not an expert in deep learning (yet) so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Technically I see no reason you couldn't say that meets the definition of l

I'm not an expert in deep learning (yet) so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Technically I see no reason you couldn't say that meets the definition of learning. But perhaps that's asking the wrong question. Dictionaries aside, one might decide that a useful standard of "learning" in certain contexts is to have a level of understanding of the subject. And then we ask, does the system have understanding? What is understanding? A system that only interpolates training data can't logically become consistently better at the task than the data it learns from. Whereas a a sufficiently deep learning system (including, but not limited to, a human) can defeat its master.