> A human doesn’t need 100TB of books to learn the alphabet.

A human does need 16ish hours per day of audio/video content for several years to learn the alphabet.

I used a single letter stencil to learn the alphabet, actually, and nobody strapped me to a chair to watch or listen something 16h a day.

Living inside a normal home with my parents was enough for the audio part.

The 16 hours of audio/video per day was a reference to being alive and hearing/seeing things for years before you actually could learn the alphabet.

It was not meant as literally sitting at a screen with audio/video for 16 hours a day.

I know, but the density of the data is much less in human case.

IOW, humans still learn more effectively with less information, because there are innate mechanisms which process this data continuously and extract new meanings from the same data. This is part of both intelligence and consciousness.

LLMs lack both.

> humans still learn more effectively with less information

> because there are innate mechanisms which process this data continuously and extract new meanings from the same data

To me, these statements strongly contradict each other, but I also really do not care enough to debate it.

I respect your disagreement and desire to leave the debate here. So we can agree to disagree.

Have a nice day.

> I know, but the density of the data is much less in human case.

Is that really the case? How much data is it for 4k video, high bitrate auditory, spacial mapping, internal and external nervous system, emotions, and a dataset to correlate all of these in time?

Then you meant audiovisual content.