>>725107798
>Congratulations for acknowledging that AI relies on data
Has anybody ever seriously stated otherwise? I can clearly member the hosters of huge models being unhappy with the internet being too smol and all of the internet data not being enough for AI.
>pre-digested by other humans while the human uses his own senses.
this is a pile of pseudo-intellectual retarded garbage. Any form of life, let alone any animal, processes data in their immediate surroundings and act accordingly or tries to. And by the way, the human sense you're praising actually suck. Cats have more senses. Birds have better vision that humans do, and the list goes on, and on, and on.
Did you know by the way, that other species, like dolphins are self-aware, conscious, processing data and might even be smarter than some humans? They can recognize themselves in the mirrors.
TL;DR here is: Shut up, you fucking retard. You aren't special. Not even close.
>You also conveniently ignored the part where machine learning algorithms require massive amounts of data
So do humans. You process way more data than you're conscious about. The data input of all of your sense and receptors is quite large and is going on 24/7.
>to form a concept
retarded ass nigger, just our species alone have required over 200.000 years of evolution for you to be able to post your retarded bullshit on the internet. Serious AI field in science exists apprx. since 1950's. LLM's are less than 10 years old. Can you give a computer some time, you non contributing shiteating mongoloid?
> the interesting artist creates his own from a thread of experience.
99.99999% of all of the human output, that includes art is complete fucking dogshit. Being sub 80iq you obviously fall victim to the obvious survivorship bias and want to reinforce the few gems that human species have created, let me repeat myself, over the past 200.000+ years.
>Try again
Shut up, you stupid pretentious cuck.
