No, machines can’t read better than humans

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by liberte82 on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @11:06AM (#16168992)

For all the advances in AI (and in specialized AI we can do some incredible things, now) - when it comes to generalized AI, it seems that we're still, ultimately, playing the same game of feeding the machine as much information as possible and then waiting for "something" to happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by freehunter on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @11:24AM (#16169165)

To be fair, that's what we do to humans as well. We feed them all the information they can consume, and after it's all been processed, then we try to figure out what all the output means. From that point forward, we heavily specialize them until their general purpose skills are basically deprecated in favor of their new specialization.

Humans aren't born with the capabilities they possess at adulthood, they're fed data constantly, every second of the day, for decades until they're ready to show their true potential. Yes it sucks that AI right now needs so much data, but then again so do humans, to a far greater extent. And no wonder we're better than AI.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by foobiekr on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @11:48AM (#16169424)

There is actually not a good reason to believe that humans - like most animals - are not born with a with a significant set of capabilities that they use through their lives into adulthood. Facial recognition as a function in humans is not a function that magically evolves by the presentation of data, neither is language acquisition.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by freehunter on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @12:20PM (#16169733)

The ability to learn a language is innate, sure. That actual process of learning a language is very, incredibly data-heavy, to the point where many people never do it more than once because of how much data it requires.

The ability for a neural network to learn something is innate as well, because we programmed it to be. But to actually get it to learn something, again, takes just a ton of data.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by ghaff on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @12:17PM (#16169693)

Furthermore, a young child may need to be shown an object, like a cup of water, a few times before they consistently recognize it. But they don't need to go through supervised learning with a 10,000 image training set with all kinds of permutations of shape, lighting, and color.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, machines can’t read better than humans by freehunter on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @12:35PM (#16169887)

I believe that's more a limitation on the information the AI is taking from the data we present it. There's no question that a human can learn more from being presented with an object than an AI can learn from being presented 10,000 pictures of that object, what's unclear is if this is a fundamental difference or something that could be overcome by reevaluating what we're teaching and how.

[ Parent | on HN ]