If you look at Chess, Poker or writing Python, I am not sure that natural evolution is giving us a huge head start.
And still, human experts in those fields don’t need as much data, even with our slow brains, the convergence rate is astounding, compared to machine learning.
I’d say that an understanding of causality helps people learn chess. Maths, from counting through algebra helps people learn to program. I’d imagine it would be hard to understand the concept of a loop if you couldn’t count.
> If you look at Chess, Poker or writing Python, I am not sure that natural evolution is giving us a huge head start.
The point you're missing is that those games have been designed by humans, for humans, so even if the natural selection didn't give us any advantage in playing chess per se, it conditioned our brain in a way that made us invent chess in the first place.
That being said, the original argument of comparing NN training data and natural selection is stupid anyway.
And still, human experts in those fields don’t need as much data, even with our slow brains, the convergence rate is astounding, compared to machine learning.