Any computer vision system that works, no matter how artificial, is ipso facto a better model of human vision than any we currently have.
-
But what does it mean to "see"? We have methods that work on benchmarks but their brittleness demonstrates that they don't see the way we do.
@aleks_madry et al. have some interesting hypotheses here:https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02175
Those methods don’t really see. We don’t have any that do yet, or a good operational definition of seeing. But that should be our focus, as opposed to playing a losing game of 20 questions with Nature (cf. Newell).
-
-
A CNN that can "see" the winning go moves in complicated positions at first glance with super-human performance is a pretty convincing demo to me, though.
-
If it successfully computes a solution then it “sees”? My calculator sees pi squared
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.