[3grdlurker]

Couldn’t you apply the same way of thinking to finding a cure for AIDS, or doing interstellar travel, or P = NP, or pretty much any problem that we haven’t solved yet? Just because we can’t solve a problem within our lifetime doesn’t mean it’s not solvable at all. This is one of the most basic principles by which knowledge, and therefore, technology, progresses.

[silisili]

Not at all. If a child could solve the AIDS issue and science couldn't, then maybe.

Humans and machines are so different today. Of course machines beat us at number calculations and such. But we have organs that computers don't and can't have. And our brains are much more in tune with using those than power of 2 bit twiddling.

As we ourselves don't understand how it works, how can we ever write a machine that does?

[3grdlurker]

Well how do you know that the image recognition error is a fault of the ML algorithm (because we can’t capture how organic minds learn, as you are suggesting) and not of the learning sample?