3 ms·

Practically it has to be higher than the bitrate of audio-visual data that is presented on a computer. Call that 1MBps for a video stream (way under-calling the

by roenxi 2y ago

Practically it has to be higher than the bitrate of audio-visual data that is presented on a computer. Call that 1MBps for a video stream (way under-calling the amount of data human vision reports I would suggest). That'd put a lower cap of around 50 GB/day of new data, 20 TB/year. Of course, computers can train with more than 2 eyes with one location and perspective. We aren't anywhere near the data cap with current training. Although to be fair I do suspect that most of that data is repetitive, boring and of little use. In my opinion some sort of check for novel data is probably going to be the next big breakthrough in machine learning.

beeflet 2y ago
> (way under-calling the amount of data human vision reports I would suggest) It doesn't matter because the amount of meaningful data for learning is accessible at a lower resolution. If someone is born with bad vision such that they effectively see at 1/2 or 1/4th of the resolution of a normal person, It's not like they will grow up to be stupid (as long as they can sit in the front of the class to see the chalkboard). In order for visual quality to impair learning it would need to be pretty bad such that you couldn't make out objects or symbols at a reasonable range.