> (humans are still machines, after all) Good point. > but I think this certainly points to why humans learn language so much faster than machine models. We c

> (humans are still machines, after all) Good point. > but I think this certainly points to why humans learn language so much faster than machine models. We can synthesize language understanding with a much richer, sensory-based model of the world and recognize that words correspond to clusters of sensations like specific sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, and smells. Yes, because unlike computers, we have bodies that are in the world. > A logical next step in AI research is figuring out some kind of way to get these various systems that do one thing and one well to interoperate the way all the parts of a brain do Do you think it’s fair to conclude that until computers have bodies that enable them to have the same situational presence and sensory awareness that humans have, computers will fall short of being able to parse natural language the way humans do? Are a (human like) body and senses sufficient or might more be required? I’m thinking of extinct animals - just because we can restore their bodies from their genomic sequence doesn’t mean we can ever restore their culture. Humans learn culture through a lifelong process that necessarily involves an early stage of childhood dependency, then growth, and maturation.