Hands are notoriously hard for human artists, which may be the cause of lack of training data. HOWEVER, hands have a huge advantage that the median human can evaluate a hand image for believably very cheaply, and there will be broad agreement on the binary classification “OK” or “bad”.
I don’t know of any such mechanism for “doing philosophy”.
Also, there does exist lots of examples of both real and of well-drawn hands, which COULD be filtered into training data if it becomes worth the cost. There are no clear examples of “good philosophy” that could be curated into a training set.
I think I meant the OP didn’t make very clear the distinction between “no training data” meaning “data exists, and humans can tell good from bad, but it’s hard to find/organize” vs “we don’t have a clear definition of good, and it’s hard to tell good from bad, so we honestly don’t think the data exists to find”.
Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. Personally I’m uncertain about this, and have some credence on each possibility, and may have written the OP to include both possibilities without explicitly distinguishing between them. See also #3 in this EAF comment and its followup for more of how I think about this.
Hands are notoriously hard for human artists, which may be the cause of lack of training data. HOWEVER, hands have a huge advantage that the median human can evaluate a hand image for believably very cheaply, and there will be broad agreement on the binary classification “OK” or “bad”.
I don’t know of any such mechanism for “doing philosophy”.
Also, there does exist lots of examples of both real and of well-drawn hands, which COULD be filtered into training data if it becomes worth the cost. There are no clear examples of “good philosophy” that could be curated into a training set.
I think I made these points in the OP? Not sure if you’re just agreeing with me, or maybe I’m missing your point?
I think I meant the OP didn’t make very clear the distinction between “no training data” meaning “data exists, and humans can tell good from bad, but it’s hard to find/organize” vs “we don’t have a clear definition of good, and it’s hard to tell good from bad, so we honestly don’t think the data exists to find”.
Ah I see, thanks for the clarification. Personally I’m uncertain about this, and have some credence on each possibility, and may have written the OP to include both possibilities without explicitly distinguishing between them. See also #3 in this EAF comment and its followup for more of how I think about this.