Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CypherLH t1_ja5mgs5 wrote

Reply to comment by Dreikesehoch in AI technology level within 5 years by medicalheads

Well presumably humans and animals ARE first labelling/categorizing but it happens at a very low level...our higher brain functions then act on that raw data. You still need that lower level base image recognition functionality to be in place though. Presumably AI could do something similar, have a higher-level model that takes input from a lower level base image recognition model.

​

From an AI/software perspective that base image recognition functionality will be extremely useful once inference costs come down.

2

turnip_burrito t1_ja6wfzt wrote

In a human brains I'd guess it's a mix of both things. A more reflexive response not requiring labeling, and a response to many different kinds of post-labeled signals relating to the door. Not sure how much of each though.

2

Dreikesehoch t1_ja7cn8v wrote

This is what I used to believe, too. But psychologists have shown that it is not the case. Think of small children: they act on their environment without recognizing objects and thereby learn what things are. Like opening/closing drawers, tearing paper, putting things in their mouth to find out if it is edible, etc.. And you surely noticed that if you see or think of something that you don’t know the function of, you can’t visualize it.

1

CypherLH t1_ja8ey2a wrote

Maybe. Its also possible that AI's more explicit _recognition_ capability will end up being super-human since its not limited by evolutionary kludges, at least once we have proper multi-modal visual models.

To use the old cliche example; our aircraft aren't as efficient as birds...but no Bird can carry hundreds of passengers or achieve supersonic speeds, etc.

1

Dreikesehoch t1_jaajuo8 wrote

We already know that brains are intelligent. We have no idea whether object recognition is a more efficient way. We don’t even know if it will lead to anything intelligent. Better to just build a scaled up version of the human brain and then let this AI figure out the next steps.

1

CypherLH t1_jabwb5z wrote

But we don't know how to make human brains aside from producing people of course ;) We do know how to create AI models though. Considering the rate of progress in just the past year I wouldn't want to bet against image generation and recognition technology.

1

Dreikesehoch t1_jaeijpt wrote

True, but we make progress figuring out how the brain works and eventually we will have a working virtual model of a brain. Image generation and recognition are improving very fast, but the lower bound on energy consumptions appears to be too high in comparison with the energy consumption of the brain. There are neuromorphic chip companies that develop different architectures that are more similar to brains than conventional architectures. They have much lower power consumption. I would prefer if we could get there using current fabs and architecture, but I am very skeptical so far.

1

CypherLH t1_jaesy8l wrote

​

I get what you are saying but not sure what the basis for skepticism right now is. Things are developing INSANELY fast since early last year; its hard to imagine things developing any faster and more impressively than they did and still are. I guess you can assume that we're close to some upper limit but I don't see a basis for assuming that.

1