> On that current AI is a bit lacking as they don't have very good sensors whereas human brains are pretty wired up for touch, smell, sight, sound and the like.

> On that current AI is a bit lacking as they don't have very good sensors whereas human brains are pretty wired up for touch, smell, sight, sound and the like. For sight and sound, the sensory input layer for AIs is much, much richer in terms of bitrate, though is redundant. > AIs do get linked to cameras though and could improve a lot in those directions. Video is an interesting one, as most AI systems use the full pixel information of a scene, while human vision is much more temporal, focusing primarily on logistic deltas rather than raw pixels. That's not inherent to hardware (e.g. see event or "neuromorphic" cameras), but it's a significant difference. My more sympathetic reading of embodiment is that the relative paucity of the human sensory stream is part of what makes us work better than current AI in many domains, in that it forces us to form richer, temporal world models from a low bitrate stream of salient events instead of relying on shallow responses to rich sensory data.