Cethinn t1_iyq24oo wrote

But they still do need to learn their name at some point. It's almost like we are seeing a tiny fragment of what someone did in their life and shouldn't expect to see all of their education just because they also learned other things, if this is what happened.


Cethinn t1_iwk6lcg wrote

G(eneral)AI is the holy grail of AI, and is what most people meant before we started calling machine learning "AI." For the moment though, ML is pretty much the best AI we have. It's really just a tool to search for minimums, not actual intelligence though. It doesn't know what it's doing or optimizing for, it just searches.


Cethinn t1_itk4l3f wrote

I'd say like 60% confidence. I also have no knowledge on the subject, but it's what makes sense. Developing mechanisms to recognize different types of sounds is a lot more difficult than just moving towards sounds in general.

Burrowing animals would create vibrations, but it wouldn't be constant unless it's near a nest of some kind. Even if that did happen, there wouldn't be any harm. If we consider the results with just burrowing towards vibration in general and burrowing towards a recognized water sound, the outcomes are about the same with one mechanism being significantly easier to evolve.


Cethinn t1_iti2gxi wrote

I haven't heard of this, but it sounds like it'd be much better explained as tree roots grow towards vibrations, not tree roots grow towards the sound of flowing water. Sure, flowing water creates vibrations, but I'd bet on it being more broad than specifically listening for water. However, in nature those are effectively the same. There aren't too many sources of vibration underground besides water, so there's no need for the trees to distinguish sources.