> to me it seems like they are more like "things that are intuitive to human visual processing".
Yann LeCun argues that humans are not general intelligence and that such a thing doesn't really exist. Intelligence can only be measured in specific domains. To the extent that this test represents a domain where humans greatly outperform AI, it's a useful test. We need more tests like that, because AIs are acing all of our regular tests despite being obviously less capable than humans in many domains.
> the problems require spatial knowledge that we intelligent humans learn with far more than 800 training examples.
Pretraining on unlimited amounts of data is fair game. Generalizing from readily available data to the test tasks is exactly what humans are doing.
> Would an intelligent but blind human be able to solve these problems?
I'm confident that they would, given a translation of the colors to tactile sensation. Blind humans still understand spatial relationships.
Yann LeCun argues that humans are not general intelligence and that such a thing doesn't really exist. Intelligence can only be measured in specific domains. To the extent that this test represents a domain where humans greatly outperform AI, it's a useful test. We need more tests like that, because AIs are acing all of our regular tests despite being obviously less capable than humans in many domains.
> the problems require spatial knowledge that we intelligent humans learn with far more than 800 training examples.
Pretraining on unlimited amounts of data is fair game. Generalizing from readily available data to the test tasks is exactly what humans are doing.
> Would an intelligent but blind human be able to solve these problems?
I'm confident that they would, given a translation of the colors to tactile sensation. Blind humans still understand spatial relationships.