Earlier quoted context omitted.
> humans do not need 10,000 examples to tell the difference between cats and dogs, I swear, not enough people have kids. Now, is it 10k examples? No, but I think it was on the order of hundreds, if not thousands. One thing kids do is they'll ask for confirmation of their guess. You'll be reading a book you've read 50 times before and the kid will stop you, point at a dog in the book, and ask "dog?" And there is a dev…
> Now, is it 10k examples? No, but I think it was on the order of hundreds, if not thousands. I have kids so I'm presuming I'm allowed to have an opinion here. This is ignoring the fact that babies are not just learning labels, they're learning the whole of language, motion planning, sensory processing, etc. Once they have the basics down concept acquisition time shrinks rapidly and kids can easily learn their new fa…
Yes. All that learning is feeding off one another. They're learning how reality works. Every bit of new information informs everything else. It's something that LLMs demonstrate too, so it shouldn't be a surprising observation.
> Once they have the basics down concept acquisition time shrinks rapidly
Sort of, kind of.
> and kids can easily learn their new favorite animal in as little as a single example.
Under 5 they don't. Can't speak what happens later, as my oldest kid just had their 5th birthday. But below 5, all I've seen is kids being quick to remember a name, but taking quite a bit longer to actually distinguish between a new animal and similarly looking ones they already know. It takes a while to update the classifier :).
(And no, they aren't going to one-shot recognize an animal in a zoo that they saw first time on a picture hours earlier; it's a case I've seen brought up, and I maintain that even most adults will fail spectacularly at this test.)
> Compare this to LLMs which can one-shot certain tasks, but only if they have essentially already memorized enough information to know about that task. It gives the illusion that these models are learning like children do, when in reality they are not even entirely capable of learning novel concepts.
Correct, in the sense that the models don't update their weights while you use them. But that just means you have to compare them with ability of humans to one-shot tasks on the spot, "thinking on their feet", which for most tasks makes even adults look bad compared to GPT-4.
> How many homework questions did your entire calc 1 class have? I'm guessing less than 100 and (hopefully) you successfully learned differential calculus.
I don't believe someone could learn calc in 100 exercises or less. Per concept like "addition of small numbers", or "long division", or "basic derivatives", or "trivial integrals", yes. Note that in-class exercises count too; learning doesn't happen primarily by homework (mostly because few have enough time in a day to do it).