Actually human children acquire knowledge faster than AI because they learn context and understanding. Comprehensive. Which AI isn't capable of doing.

And even compared to llms. A toddler child can learn verbal language faster.

They hear a word being used one time and can apply that word appropriately a short time later in a new situation. Because they learn context and understanding of the word properties.

Llms need literally millions of stolen literature to form sentences. And it's just copy paste based on probabilities.

That's not how humans work. We need way less exposure to have deep learning and comprehension. Sometimes only requiring a single experience of a word or response to know how to apply it to new scenarios.

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.

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.

AI models don't really "know" anything

Who is upvoting this crap??

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.

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.

Judging by its parents grasp of the English language I don't think it has much of a fighting chance

Having babies now is moronic. They're doomed.

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.