3 ms·
And there's no reason we couldn't have a deep learning system where the input data (images) included time-stamps and movement vectors, and it could be good both
by jmmcd 6y ago
And there's no reason we couldn't have a deep learning system where the input data (images) included time-stamps and movement vectors, and it could be good both at easy image classification, and at choosing particular "head movements" like those you performed, to help resolve ambiguous cases.
Further food for thought: these ambiguous cases seem (do you agree?) to be very rare.
- mjburgess 6y agoAmbiguity is the norm, it isn't rare. Almost all visual input, ie., light, is ambiguous. We (animals) use the history of our prior geometrical-light experiences (ie., walking around) to use environmental cues to resolve ambiguity. That billions (, trillions) of images are needed to aproximate what we can do for a single instance, i think is a good guide to the magnitude of the problem. Google the "amnes room" -- that "illusion" is how we are always seeing.
- jmmcd 6y ago> Ambiguity is the norm Right. But as you say, usually our priors are good enough. The cases where we stop, double-take, and deliberately look from another angle are rare.