Yes, I think that's largely right. What we require is a "bridge" from any particular feature space to the target. A compression of a feature space doesn't prod

Yes, I think that's largely right. What we require is a "bridge" from any particular feature space to the target. A compression of a feature space doesn't produce this bridge. When we look at a photo, its ink-space arragement can be bridged to its depicted situation via our ability to brigde. We see in the ink, a world. We do this via concepts which bridge. We get those by being in the world. We can "roughly accept" limited forms of inference which simply operate within a feature space, ie., we can be fooled by photos "made on photoshop" which appear to depict a situation which never really existed. A machine operates in "inkspace" and we rig it only ever to produce "human-bridgable" arragements of ink. The machine itself doesnt draw a situation -- as with an artist painting a room. A machine isnt in the room. It is, as-if it were in the room, and as if it had painted it. This illusion is created by us, we rig the system to average historical paintings of rooms, and only ever show the apes-at-home a good picture. They think, looking at it, that the machine has painted something. One formulation of this, I suppose, is to add "| HumanUnderstanding(Y-as-labelled, Y-the-actual-target)" to everything