yes my point was that this total failure to abstract (or slice or average or whatever it is that it usually seems to do) appears to me to be neither the intended nor typical mode of operation
> children under 1/10 of that age, who have seen only 10% of those images would not make the same kinds of mistakes
but then children aren't being fed a stream of unrelated images. they're receiving a wide array of real time sensory input from an environment they're actively operating in
consider your examples of the lack of higher level understanding about how the parts of a human "fit together". what practical experience do these models have that could actually convey such an understanding? deriving a proper understanding of mechanics in 3D from one million independent 2D still frames of human hands performing various tasks seems like it should be extremely difficult at best
> Could this be trained in? I expect so, but I think it would require multiple engines
I think it requires a different sort of training algorithm entirely. work such as https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10122 suggests to me that there might be little difference between the human ability to abstract and lossy compression. at the same time work such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11502 makes it apparent that in many cases this sort of generalization simply does not happen the way we'd like
> the neuron/synapse/neurotransmitter and brainstem/midbrain/cerebellum micro & macro-architectures are vastly different than the computer training models. So, I think we can be confident that something different is happening
something being architected differently doesn't necessarily mean that the higher level functionality is any different
moreover, in purely functional terms how do you propose to distinguish something that's different from something that's incomplete? ie a smaller piece of a larger whole? if someone constructs for example a passable digital model of the visual cortex of the mouse or human or other animal that's still only a single small piece of the whole
so who is and how are we to say that we either have or haven't achieved a meaningful form of abstraction versus merely averaging bits of the training set together? at this point I'm not actually clear where the line between those two things even lies