[stoniejohnson]

I think the bitter lesson implies that if we could study/implement "how a machine with limitless cpu cycles would make our eyes see something we are currently thinking of" then it would likely lead to a better result than us using hominid heuristics to split things into sub-problems that we hand over to the machine.

[nuancebydefault]

The technology to probe brains and visual related neurons exists today. With limitless cpu cycles we would for sure be able to do make us see whatever we think about.

[stoniejohnson]

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.