Jazzgear296 wrote:
yongliu wrote
hasenbein wrote
And in the press release the usual bullshit of "AI white balance" and "deep learning".
This camera, like all others, doesn't contain a trace of AI. AI would mean that the camera learns through your shooting experiences, so that each individual copy over time develops individual reactions to shooting situations. Of course this isn't the case, each copy of a certain camera model reacts in the same way, and that reaction doesn't change over time. I assume it uses fixed pre-trained model and its chip is not powerful enough to do fine-tuning or active learning.
If it's a Nikon/Canon camera the model may get optimized in a few FW updates (still not tailored per user). It’s still not true AI in my opinion. In Data Science, this would be equivalent to nothing more than an Edit Check — aka automated execution of some business rules. By definition, true Ai would result in some cameras being at different AI capability stages based on the number of use cases executed with the camera and what it learned from those cases. At the very minimum, there would have to be a data feedback loop from your camera usage patterns back to Sony so that they can retrain the models and update it on some regular basis.
It is AI. Definition being: "The ability of a computer or other machine to perform those activities that are normally thought to require intelligence." => there is no mention of self learning here. You can produce AI without self learning. And Chess with the Alpha-Beta algorithm, before the engines started to use NN/NNUE is one such example, those engines were not learning anything, they were pre-trained, and yet, they're still AI.
Edit: Actually, even those very new Chess engines using NN/NNUE are still not learning anything. The training is done somewhere else, and the engines themselves are just using the trained data, and applying it, just as those Sony cameras are doing with subject recognition.
You're thinking "self learning" and that is a subset of what "AI" is.