How about a real dog and a photo of a real dog? Having been taught the difference between a photo of a dog and a drawing of a dog, would it then be able to dif

How about a real dog and a photo of a real dog? Having been taught the difference between a photo of a dog and a drawing of a dog, would it then be able to differentiate between a photo of any object and a drawing of that object, or do we need to teach it the difference again for every different object there is? If I teach it to identify a simple two colour single-line drawing of a dog, like that Picasso picture, will it then be able to handle surrealist drawings of dogs, and impressionist, and cubist, and a picture of a sculpture, and watercolours and charcoal and all the other varieties of form and style, or do I need to teach it separately for everything? Don't forget slide puzzles! I can tell this is a dog - https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oAtmNcl25MPQOZ5Occ_fr7_BKrxjQ_5uyZ13WKupm3MtZaXne-BLqlIQ8ZXk7n7augM=h900 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oAtmNcl25MPQOZ5Occ_fr7_BKr... These of course are hypothetical questions; I suspect the answer is that there is going to be an awful lot of teaching, with a few pleasant surprises when it gets one style of artwork from having seen enough of other styles. Except the first one; to the NN, a real dog is a picture of a dog - with no concept of real object behind the picture, the NN's universe is pictures and it will only ever be a simple machine for identifying things in a very very narrow universe. Nothing I'm saying here is news to anyone, of course, but sometimes it seems like these NNs are portrayed as general identifiers, when they're actually very narrow.