There is much we don't know about how humans and animals learn to see.  But it is clear that they fail to learn to see if only exposed to disembodied snapshots the way current AI systems are.  Even streaming imagery is insufficient.  Interacting with the world, moving through it, reaching out and touching things seems totally essential.  

That's not true: at least primates can recognise photographs. Many animals also pass the infamous "mirror test".

What about bats?

There is much we don't know about how humans and animals learn to see.  But it is clear that they fail to learn to see if only exposed to disembodied snapshots the way current AI systems are.  Even streaming imagery is insufficient.  Interacting with the world, moving through it, reaching out and touching things seems totally essential.  

That's not true: at least primates can recognise photographs. Many animals also pass the infamous "mirror test".

What about bats?

They wing it.

That's not true: at least primates can recognise photographs. Many animals also pass the infamous "mirror test".

What about bats?

They wing it.

What?

https://www.betteratenglish.com/english ... -improvise

OK. Bats communicate by sound.

That's not true: at least primates can recognise photographs. Many animals also pass the infamous "mirror test".

Creature only passs the mirror test after extensive training about life.  Human babies, for example, can't pass the mirror test until somewhere between 13 and 24 months.

OK, so you meant that all animals need multi-modal experience in order to develop vision. I can take it on faith, but I doubt anyone tested this experimentally (and I wouldn't want any animal to be subjected to such an experiment).

BTW, based on fMRI studies, different regions of the brain are responsible for corporal and mental identity perception (elephants, humans, chimps, dolphins and one of my cats are indeed confirmed to have the first based on the mirror test). Still, it's something different than recognising any object.

That's not true: at least primates can recognise photographs. Many animals also pass the infamous "mirror test".

Creature only passs the mirror test after extensive training about life.  Human babies, for example, can't pass the mirror test until somewhere between 13 and 24 months.

OK, so you meant that all animals need multi-modal experience in order to develop vision. I can take it on faith, but I doubt anyone tested this experimentally (and I wouldn't want any animal to be subjected to such an experiment).

There's a long line of such research but you and kata would be truly appalled by it. Perhaps the most interesting one (http://marom.net.technion.ac.il/files/2 ... d-1963.pdf) gave two kittens identical visual experiences but only one kitten of the pair got to explore its environment. The kitten that only saw the world passively never developed binocular vision as judged by failing the blink test, visual cliff test, and paw-eye coordination test. Because the one kitten never got to explore on its own, it never learned near and far (which would seem to require experiencing self-propelled motion toward and away from things) or that visual data gave any indication of distance.

1963... There are so many accompanying factors present in such studies that they are practically useless. We have better, non-invasive (which is important for the study conclusiveness) techniques these days.

https://www.betteratenglish.com/english ... -improvise

OK. Bats communicate by sound.

Presumably you meant "navigate" by sound. Definitions of "communicate" imply the intentional transmission of information from the speaker to others.

It would be interesting to see if bats pass the mirror test. I would suspect that some of the bats that eat fish would see themselves reflected in the water and recognize that the acoustic signature of their reflection was not that of another bat flying below them. Whether cave-dwelling bats also see some reflection of themselves in the cave walls is not clear because the walls are probably not smooth enough to form a coherent echolocation signal.

1963... There are so many accompanying factors present in such studies that they are practically useless. We have better, non-invasive (which is important for the study conclusiveness) techniques these days.

LOL! You know that people did successfully do science before you were born.

I do, but you should try harder if you want to make an impression that you know something about science and scientific thinking.

I do, but you should try harder if you want to make an impression that you know something about science and scientific thinking.

The same could be said of you, unfortunately.

I think everybody can see for themselves. And you don't get points for provoking competent people to answer to your confused or wrong deliberations.

A more serious issue is the following; reproducibility. Do you always get a gibbon from the same panda input? Maybe, is it serious for NN in a heavy metal production process with  real-time constraints?

The booming field of artificial intelligence (AI) is grappling with a replication crisis, much like the ones that have afflicted psychology, medicine, and other fields over the past decade. Just because algorithms are based on code doesn't mean experiments are easily replicated. Far from it. Unpublished codes and a sensitivity to training conditions have made it difficult for AI researchers to reproduce many key results. That is leading to a new conscientiousness about research methods and publication protocols. Last week, at a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in New Orleans, Louisiana, reproducibility was on the agenda, with some teams diagnosing the problem—and one laying out tools to mitigate it.

Seems some bridges need to be built between AI and engineering principles.

It happened to me several times: I reimplemented someone's method to obtain different results. In some cases those were bugs in their code, in other errors in their methods. Once I showed that all revolutionary results of a top scientific journal paper are nothing else but such errors and bugs. In fact I showed that the authors should change their jobs to something more mechanical (sweeping streets?), but since the problem is more widespread (concerns ca 80% of the scientific community), I think the consensus is that it's safer to keep all those idiots in isolated places, such as universities.

That's where the best ones go! For now. Soon they will be pushed out by politically skilled, but dumb, professors, aspiring professors and their toadies (in the reverse order of their life cycle stages). They will come pushing themselves onto your author list, crawling into your projects, claiming your work, ...