>And even STILL, you can't be SURE. That's why I said "with reasonable accuracy and consistency". Human can't be SURE either. Nothing is ever SURE if we want t

>And even STILL, you can't be SURE. That's why I said "with reasonable accuracy and consistency". Human can't be SURE either. Nothing is ever SURE if we want to stretch it to absurdum. My entire point is that computers can be better than people at a given visual recognition task. Therefore we might discover that some information is present in the data even though we previously thought that information was not recorded. That's literally the entire argument. I'm not sure what you are opposing.