4 ms·
What is specific about this model? These categories aren't what defines intelligence in animal life. Segmentation is a post-hoc assertion into visual science, n
by mallowdram 1y ago
What is specific about this model? These categories aren't what defines intelligence in animal life. Segmentation is a post-hoc assertion into visual science, not necessarily an inside-out process inherent to perception.
These models aren't the path, they're cheap workarounds that exclude the senses.
- ACCount37 1y ago[flagged]
- mallowdram 1y agoYou again? Learn some manners engineer.
- ACCount37 1y ago[flagged]
- mallowdram 1y ago[flagged]
- mallowdram 1y agoAnd, it will be easy. You've made junk tech from pseudoscience, classic houses of cards.
- ACCount37 1y agoIt's either a bot or a random internet schizophrenic.
- mallowdram 1y ago[flagged]
- the_af 1y agoI think it's someone playing a prank, based on their comments history here (almost everything cryptic and full of non sequiturs), and also... look at their username: "mallowdram". Say it out loud ;)
- mallowdram 1y ago[flagged]
- marcellus23 1y agoI don't understand what point you're making exactly. What categories do you mean? What do you mean by segmentation not necessarily being "an inside-out process inherent to perception"?
- mallowdram 1y agoThe criteria for learning in this model has nothing to do with biological intelligence. Segmentation is a cog-sci hold-over of vision science and Marr and isn't how brain's perceive scenes/objects/events. There is a relatovely new approach to perception that ML has ignored that's integrative, coordinated, holistic. These new approaches, affective, coordinated-dynamical, ecological (optic-flow) are the likely routes to consciousness. What ML does with images like these are retrofit, they're imposed ad hoc on imagery as a pretend form of intelligence.
- mallowdram 1y agoInside-Out is a reversal of the stimuli model and a reversal of the cog-sci cognition model. https://academic.oup.com/book/35081 https://academic.oup.com/book/35081 The senses can't be excluded from consciousness or intelligence, otherwise the notion of intelligence is reduced from an arbitrary set of tests/criteria. Robotics and trained analogies, arbitrary ideas of affordance (which are not affordances) are definitely interesting, but they're not paths to intel. They're paths to homogenization posing as intelligence. This is the classic robotics idea of computer vision backing itself into a corner. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Wkno8pKzWiav1a7c8IOrAlrr_AWUafn1_3aK1sLhK2k/edit?usp=drive_link https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Wkno8pKzWiav1a7c8IOr...