|
|
|
|
|
by fauigerzigerk
617 days ago
|
|
Humans don't act based on visual patterns alone though. We act based on our understanding of the world as a whole, including the intentions of other humans. For instance, when we see a ball rolling onto the street, we know that there is probably a young person nearby who wants that ball back. We don't have to be trained on the visual patterns of what might happen next. Of course AI can be trained on the visuals of high probability events like this. But the number of things that can potentially happen is far greater than the number of training examples we could ever produce. |
|
Models don't need to have been trained on every single possibility - it's possible for them to generalize and interpolate/extrapolate.
But, even knowing that it's theoretically possible to drive at human-level with only the senses humans have, it does seem like it makes it unnecessarily difficult to limit the vehicle to just that. Forces solving hard tasks at/near 100% human-level, opposed to reaching 70% then making up for the shortcoming with extra information that humans don't have.