4 ms·
I'm not sure what the point is. Are you saying that because deer don't have what you might call generalized intelligence a data driven learned approach can't or
by space_fountain 5y ago
I'm not sure what the point is. Are you saying that because deer don't have what you might call generalized intelligence a data driven learned approach can't or won't? I think most people agree that humans are smarter than deer and there is probably some importance to the conditions that molded us, but it still seems like our intelligence is still "just" the result of learning to learn
- joe_the_user 5y ago"Are you saying that because deer don't have what you might call generalized intelligence a data driven learned approach can't or won't?" Won't necessarily, A data driven approach won't necessarily work. I'm sure that given the proper learn and virtually any "program" or algorithm, there's version data-driven training that would be able install such a program., so in the abstract data-driven training would able to do "anything". But you'd need to know what to do. But poster above said "Human learning is based on millions of different learning strategies that were encoded into the neurons of each of our ancestors". And it seems like many of those millions of years actually produced more narrow (if extremely powerful and impressive) behaviors while the generality of human intelligence is relatively more recent. Of course, human beings "learned to learn" somehow. It's just that I think it's plausible that a specific set of circumstances were necessary. I would say the evolution of both language and complex social interactions were part of this.
- srean 5y agoI agree. Natural selection wields significant influence. Too much too soon and it may go extinct. If its just right, the intelligence to cross roads might give them a reproductive advantage.