No large training sets? The baby is updating their training data set every second with new sounds, images and other sensory inputs (smell, touch). Current data centers would be overwhelmed with the amount of data that one child processes every day.

Baby can be flexible, adaptable, feeling, loving, hoping, dreaming. Enjoy her ComradePenguin, she is a treasure. “AI” may be many things one day. Please don’t assume it can’t do something (intellectual). One of the big negatives is that a human intelligence runs on a few hundred watts, whole body. An “AI” uses probably several orders of magnitude more, just for the “I” part which is not good for the humans (pollution, etc). If only they could try to improve “AI” efficiency instead of brute-forcing. USA logic though. Brute force.

Humans can turn information into knowledge. AI can only extract predigested knowledge. That’s why they need such large data sets.

This is also why AGI is still a pipe dream. Most of the subsections already exist, but without a knowledge engine at its core, it’s like a person with a massive concussion. It sounds reasonable to simple conversation, but goes off on weird tangents.

I always find it fascinating to watch children learn and grow. The mistakes they make are often completely logical, they just have holes in their knowledge, and lack critical information. It leads to wonderful conclusions, which are also completely wrong.

Eh, depends on the baby. For all we know it could grow up to be a flat-earther or something.

My baby learn without large training sets.

What does this mean?

Unless you home school then how will you know they won’t be taught with AI?

She can fold clothes, which AI can’t do.

But why can’t you make an AI that constantly adjusts the weights as new data becomes available? You wouldn’t have to dump 20 MW of power on it during the training period every year. Instead, just keep running it at a lower power and have it generate and learn simultaneously.