Do LLMs “think” in a similar way to humans? Or is it totally different?
Maybe it’s a good idea to listen to someone who publishes papers on this very subject, and is a professor of both philosophy and psychiatry and directs an Institute for Cognitive Science. That person is Dr. Chandra Sripada and his insights are fascinating.
Sean Carroll (interviewer, scientist and science communicator) says this interview made him lean towards the answer being “yes, they think like humans” whereas previously he favored the opposite view.
I can tell you’re not up to date on cognitive psychology.
The principle of minimizing surprise – of predicting the next thing – is what most people who study this sort of thing have used as the basis for most of our cognitive capacity.
But, please do keep telling us your popular opinion, I’m sure it’s well-informed by detailed published studies.
That’s a very simplistic interpretation. A popular book that counters it is https://bookwyrm.social/book/29025/s/thinking-fast-and-slow
I can tell you’re an AI shill…
You are objecting to an objectively debatable, scientifically study-able thesis with ad-hominem, tribalism, end emotional groupthink.
I don’t see a lot of critiques about the notion of production systems in LLMs being phenomenologically similar to those in humans, nor to any of the other reasons why this particular expert – which I am not – has the opinion that neural net cognition is usefully describable as akin – “cousin to” – human cognition.
I personally have huge doubts about the methodological merits of phenomenology. Consider this as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(psychology)
I was wrong. You’re not an AI shill, you’re just an AI that was told to justify its existence…
Cool unscientific story.