2 ms·
I kind of got lost on the first sentence: "With a lifetime of observing the world informing our perceptions, we’re all pretty good at inferring the overall sha
by 13of40 9y ago
I kind of got lost on the first sentence: "With a lifetime of observing the world informing our perceptions, we’re all pretty good at inferring the overall shape of something we only see from the side, or for a brief moment. Computers, however, are just plain bad at it."
I'm good at inferring the shape of something from a side view well enough that I can use it in some kludgy mental models, but down the page they're essentially asking the computer to look at something from the side and render a precise(ish) 3-D mechanical model of the object from memory. For example, I have what I think is a pretty good idea of what a Boeing 737 looks like, but if you asked me to draw it on a piece of paper it would look like a kinder gardener did it. What I'm good at is boiling down features and distinguishing a 737 from an Oscar Meyer wiener truck. Drawing a scale-accurate picture of it is a job for artists and savants.
- khedoros1 9y agoThe computer's a savant at precise drawing, but the visualization isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is having the computer look at a 2D picture and come up with a "kludgy mental model" of the 3D shape represented by the picture. From the example images, it infers information more accurately than I would've expected.
- jackhack 9y agoI can't help but wonder what would result from an Escher drawing.