If you want to compare today's state of the art chess playing model to a human that's the relevant comparison, but if you want to compare the current field of A

If you want to compare today's state of the art chess playing model to a human that's the relevant comparison, but if you want to compare the current field of AI to humans the line between the system and the training becomes fuzzy. If you look at the past 10 years of AI we have massively reduced the amount of data required to achieve a given score for computer vision models by making changes to the system of the neural networks. In fact it's where most of the improvements have come from rather than increasing the amount of data. I don't see a reason to believe it won't keep working this way. I'd say we're being damn efficient and it doesn't feel fair to say "look at how much data they need, the approach is fundamentally wrong" when we've been at it for such a short amount of time compared to the millions of years it took humans to evolve.