i used an analogy yesterday, that #LLMs are basically system 1 (from Thinking Fast and Slow), and system 2 doesn’t exist but we can kinda fake it by forcing the LLM to have an internal dialog.
my understanding is that system 1 was more tuned to pattern matching and “gut reactions”, while system 2 is more analytical
i think it probably works pretty well, but curious what others think
@kellogh I use that exact analogy. And emphasize that we certainly do use and need System 2 at least occasionally. At some point, human-like reasoning must use symbols with definite, not probabilistic, outcomes. Can that arise implicitly within attention heads? Similar to embeddings being kinda-sorta knowledge representation? I mean, maybe? But it still seems hugely wasteful to me. I still tend towards neuro-symbolic being the way.
Add comment