Aren't you agreeing with his point?

The process of evolution distilled down all that "humongous" amount to what is most useful. He's basically saying our current ML methods to compress data into intelligence can't compare to billions of years of evolution. Nature is better at compression than ML researchers, by a long shot.

▲

samrus 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Sample efficiency isnt the ability to distill alot of data into good insights. Its the ability to get good insights from less data. Evolution didnt do that it had a lot of samples to get to where it did

▲

FloorEgg 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Sample efficiency isnt the ability to distill alot of data into good insights

Are you claiming that I said this? Because I didn't....

There's two things going on.

One is compressing lots of data into generalizable intelligence. The other is using generalized intelligence to learn from a small amount of data.

Billions of years and all the data that goes along with it -> compressed into efficient generalized intelligence -> able to learn quickly with little data

	▲	gjvc 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Are you talking past me?" on this site, more than likely, and with intent