druffischnuffi

druffischnuffi t1_j6w60ce wrote

I live close to the divide between Rhine and Danube (green and red). It is amazing how the Rhine flows in a semicircle around the Danube basin.

It gets really weird since a part of the Danube water sinks into the ground, crosses the divide through cracks in the earth and later enters the Rhine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Sinkhole

1

druffischnuffi t1_iym6mjv wrote

I agree. That is very unsatisfactory. I also think that NNs are often being overestimated.

However, I think what is lacking in the line of reasoning is a positive definition of true learning. A test that an AI must pass if it is truly learning.

I myself would not consider myself able of generalizing a set of samples to the above equation. So does that mean I cannot learn?

2

druffischnuffi t1_iylvkt0 wrote

I still do not get why people keep saying that AI is "not truly learning" or "not actually intelligent".

They always invent some weird criteria that a "true AI" would need to satisfy, for example that it can learn affine transformations without being taught to or that it must be immune to adversarial attacks.

If you think you are truly learning because your brain figured out affine transformations on its own, try reading a book upside down

5