[anon84873628]

Thank you. I think my comment was careful to specify "in this domain" and "computer vision model"; I didn't say anything about generative AI. The reference to neural networks was hopefully an obvious rhetorical flair, rather than a one-line assertion that computers and brains are actually equivalent.

I also didn't say anything about whatever Altman or any specific company is doing.

The simple fact is that we send humans to school for years to learn to read and classify these things. It's something computers will be able to do strictly better.

[Eufrat]

> It's something computers will be able to do strictly better.

I don’t think there’s any evidence that’s true.

[anon84873628]

Really? What about the use of computer vision for satellite imagery? Facial recognition?

The premise seems to be proven, just not extended to the medical domain yet.

[Eufrat]

I think you’re conflating detection with interpretation.

[anon84873628]

Radiologists like to distinguish between "perception" and "cognition", but the reality is that cognition is the same statistical process machines use, just without knowing the actual probability numbers.

Satellite image processing can certainly detect a hotspot then interpret it as either a small brushfire or a missile launch. Facial recognition detects my features then interprets who I am. It's all pattern matching just at different scales in different parameter spaces.