3 ms·
> I don't agree that brains can learn on their own, unsupervised. Facts don't require your agreement. They're still facts. You're suggesting that the "2 decad
by gambiter 11y ago
> I don't agree that brains can learn on their own, unsupervised.
Facts don't require your agreement. They're still facts.
You're suggesting that the "2 decades of hardware tuning" is equivalent to programming, and that just isn't the case. While parents definitely provide instruction, each child's brain is fully on its own to program itself. It teaches itself how to make sense of the visual signals it's receiving from the retina... no one teaches a child up from down, how shading and colors differ, how to use both eyes in tandem to provide depth perception. It's all automatic and 'magical' in a way, because literally NOTHING you can do as a parent can speed that process up in any meaningful way. The same is true for hearing. You can't just upload your current understanding of the world... the closest you can come is by trying to help them along mechanically, by holding them up as they 'walk' their legs, for instance, but their brain is still figuring it out entirely independently. Showing the child how to move their legs is NOT the equivalent of showing them how to detect orientation using their inner ear, or teaching them how to send impulses to their muscles in the right order and at the right time, or teaching them to predict momentum so that they don't just fall on their face.
> computer learning is orders of magnitude more effective than human learning
The only reason one could even ATTEMPT to make that claim is that a computer's learning is something that can be copied digitally. A single machine can't even approach the learning abilities of the brain. Computers are so fundamentally different that it's not even a fair comparison to the computer... the brain will win every time.
> I find it very strange that people leave out the 2 decades of hardware tuning and supervised knowledge building that humans get
It's because it just isn't relevant. Take the most advanced AI available today, slap it in a robot and spend 2 decades raising it. I guarantee it won't end up anywhere close to a human in abilities or intelligence. If you can't see that, you're being intentionally obtuse.
- 1971genocide 11y agoThe last part was funny. Modern robotics has been around for more than 20 years and there is no autonomy whatsoever. It might surprise many people who claim that AIG is 20-30 away from now that in robotics, something as simple as cup stacking is a major problem. If you can figure out how to do that you will get slightly famous. The brain and a computer work so fundamentally differently that its impossible to provide a single framework to compare them. This is why I used the metric of computational complexity but even that is not at all accurate. I think due to the tremendous amount of automation we have seen in the past 10-20 years, many programmer have difficulty appreciating the awesomeness of biological intelligence. Rather than view the success of automation as a failure of how human education works. By fully appreciating how complexity of the biological intelligence can we start to learn from it and append it.
- LesZedCB 11y agoTotally agree! I think we have deviated too far from biological models in order to achieve marketable results. Google is satisfied with probabilistic machine learning because it will still make them plenty of money being able to tag images. This is why I admire the approach Jeff Hawkins is taking by going back to the biological model for more inspiration.