[ccozan]

I agree that the problem is hard. However, biological brain is able to handle it quite "easily" ( is not really easy - bilions of iterations were needed ). The current brains are solving this 3D physical world _only_ via perception.

So this is place were we must look. It starts with the sensing and the integration of that sensing. I am working at this problem since more than 10 years and I came to some results. I am not a real scientist but a true engineer and I am looking from that perspective quite intesely: The question that one must ask is: how do you define the outside physical world from the perspective of a biological sensing "device" ? what exactly are we "seeing" or "hearing"? So yes, working on that brought it further in defining the physical world.

[tmilard]

I do agree with you. We have an natural eye (what you call a 'biological brain') automat that inconsciouly 'feels' the structure of a geometric of the places we enter to.

Once this layer of "natural eye automat" is programmed behind a camera, it will spit out this crude geometry : the Spacial-data-bulk (SDB). This SDB is small data.

From now on, our programs will only do reason, not on data froms camera(s) but only on this small SBD.

This is how I see it.

[tmilard]

==> And now the LLMs, to feel Spacial knowledge, will have a very reduce dataset. This will make spacial data reasoning very less intencive than we can't imagine.

[andoando]

Also a cook here whose spent years thinking about this, would love to hear about what results you've obtained

[foobarian]

Maybe a brute force solution would work just like it did for text. I would not be surprised if the scale of that brute force was not within reach yet though.