then people would be naturally great at probability Where do you get that conclusion? Think of a baseball player with exceptional hand-eye coordination, who al

then people would be naturally great at probability Where do you get that conclusion? Think of a baseball player with exceptional hand-eye coordination, who also knows absolutely nothing about any of the math or calculus behind it. There is a vast chasm between conscious and subconscious thought (where the latter might be viewed as the underlying "intelligence model"). I don't agree that a (partially) probabilistic model would necessarily imply a proficiency at the conscious, communicable level. we wouldn't benefit from learning about and consciously using probability to solve problems, as our brain would already do it on a lower level. Don't understand this one either. Back to the baseball player - there is a lot of value we gain from our brains "naturally" solving e.g. inverse kinematics problems on the fly. But, there is also a lot we gain from understanding these mathematical concepts at the conscious level. Totally different realms, both useful. Statistical methods generally need a big learning set to learn anything. Ok, that's a limitation of the current AI models. They're not smart enough to infer the essential characteristics of an elephant from a small set (it's also a very narrow approach...you don't start a child off by showing them pictures of elephants, first they have to spend a long time acquiring basic fundamentals of knowledge and perception). I don't see how that implies a more deterministic nature of organic intelligence. Even the child might think something is an elephant and be wrong. But (IMO) it's the same process of using the bits of knowledge you have to make a guess (and an estimated degree of certainty). "It could be this thing or it could be that thing, and my model says it has the greatest probability of being this one, so that's what I'm going with."