Bernard, what I said was:
Ilian Velikov wrote:I don't see how such a software could be 100% accurate, or at least more accurate than a human.
Meaning that I think the computer is less accurate than a human not that the human is 100% accurate.
Maybe there could be a way to give a computer so many parameters that it could become very accurate, although as you pointed this is not justifiable in terms of efficiency. However, contrary to you I'm not convinced about the reliability too. One of the main differences between how a human brain thinks and how a computer "thinks" is the way the stored information is retrieved. In the human brain all data is freely associated and retrieved with an astonishing speed (almost instantaneously). In the computer everything is in a mathematical order and the information is retrieved in a very different way. For this reason alone (not to mean there are no others) a computer would never be as reliable or accurate in identifying species, i.e. the human brain can notice subtle things such as silhouette, or shape of the head, or things like the environment in which the animal is photographed, the age, the gender, and it could make associations on previous experiences and gathered data to identify a species sometimes even if it's just a tail visible or a leg, or the gleaming shell of a turtle, or it's snout and nose poking out of the water. A computer doesn't have this "magic" that the brain has and it wouldn't have it any time soon because for it to have it humans have to give it to it, and humans can't give it to it because we still can't explain exactly and completely how our brains work.