I think the results of this lab both support and do not support the view of humans as machines as discussed in Chapter two of Gleitman. I feel that we can become better at activities as seen with the multiple trials, but its not anywhere close to the extent of being consistent like a machine. The general result of my trends improved but it varied so greatly on certain trials that I would lean more toward the not supporting side of this view.
I agree with with this statement. It's true that people can definitely get better at various things as they practice it more and more, but people would never be able to reach the same consistency as a machine. It's possible to get really good at something to the point where you can get a lot of the same results often, but getting the same results every time is rather rare.
I agree with both posts above. While it's possible for humans to get better at actions once we become familiar with them, it will never be possible to outclass a machine at an action which doesn't require reasoning outside of a computer's abilities.
