I'm not really familiar with that technology space, but if you take that as true, is your argument something like:
- We don't have limitless CPU cycles
- Thus we need to split things into sub-problems
If so that might still be amenable to the bitter lesson, where Sutton is saying human heuristics will always lose out to computational methods at scale.
Meaning something like:
- We split up the thought to vision problem into N sub-problems based on some heuristic.
- We develop a method which works with our CPU cycle constraint (it isn't some probe -> CPU interface). Perhaps it uses our voice or something as a proxy for our thoughts, and some composition of models.
Sutton would say:
Yeah that's fine, but if we had the limitless CPU cycles/adequate technology, the solution of probe -> CPU would be better than what we develop.
- We don't have limitless CPU cycles
- Thus we need to split things into sub-problems
If so that might still be amenable to the bitter lesson, where Sutton is saying human heuristics will always lose out to computational methods at scale.
Meaning something like:
- We split up the thought to vision problem into N sub-problems based on some heuristic.
- We develop a method which works with our CPU cycle constraint (it isn't some probe -> CPU interface). Perhaps it uses our voice or something as a proxy for our thoughts, and some composition of models.
Sutton would say:
Yeah that's fine, but if we had the limitless CPU cycles/adequate technology, the solution of probe -> CPU would be better than what we develop.