Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> if another human can recognize you on a photo, then a machine can be taught to do the same.

Sounds like:

If a human can do X then a machine can be taught to do the same.

Which is not necessarily true.



It's easy to say that a super generalised version of another person's claim isn't always true. But face recognition in static pictures works pretty well by now, and it would just take a little bit of digging to find examples where a trained model can do it better than a human.


What object in a picture can be detected just by a human but not a machine?



mirrors? not the reflection but the reflector.



> Which is not necessarily true.

Yet.


Humans are machines, so why wouldn't that be necessarily true?


Machines are designed, constructed, and built by humans.

If humans are "machines," then who built us?


I think it's debatable whether that's a necessary condition for something to be reasonably considered a machine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: