[msinclair]

When it comes to abstraction from a simple rendering – no shading, no sense of depth, no discernible dimensions – it's hard to extrapolate features.

I feel there is an immense difference between recognizing simple sketches and deriving what an object is based on extended characteristics.

The video you linked furthers that by showing that ASIMO was using three-dimensional observation to calculate certain features and ascertain what that object was.

[gcp]

The abstract drawings benefit a lot from the limited selection and the huge implicit context.

If you'd give these doodles to people that are not Western males it'll do a lot worse. Someone already pointed out it doesn't recognize woman's shoes.

[laumars]

Humans frequently misrecognise sketches too.

[pbhjpbhj]

If you've ever played pictionary you'll see the level of abstraction we can manage is remarkable too.

[msinclair]

Familiarity with teammates may factor into that as well, partially from having unspoken frames of reference to infer from.

It is unmistakable how much the difficulty level ramps up when you're paired with those of an unlike-nature to you. Sometimes that level of abstraction is taken way outside of generic context clues.

[laumars]

It is but we've also had decades of practice. What scares the most about AI isn't how advanced computers can become but how slow we are to learn in comparison.

[pbhjpbhj]

Actually in mind when I was mentioning that was playing a game I coined "foot pictionary" (we've also played "blind pictionary") with kids ages ~6 to 10yo.

We use very generic "words" (eg egg, tree, bike, cloud, plate).

When you're using your foot to draw you really have to distill down to the essence of the item. Yes there is a deal of guessing but in some way the image (however unlike the object) has to have some element of the Platonic nature, if you will, of the object being drawn.

Fun!