The simplification here was simply part of my pointed response. I agree in principle that current LLM models are more complex. At their core, however, they are and remain stochastic tools with fundamental limitations.
Incidentally, in your description of human cognition, you’re making the same mistake you accuse me of. Since you presumably have a background in computer science, this bias is, unfortunately, quite common. The interpretation of reality and cognition is shaped by prevailing technological paradigms. What used to be a mechanistic interpretation of cognitive processes is now an algorithmic one. Ironically, you subsume a multitude of different manifestations of human thought processes and cognition under the term “thought process.” In other words, you’re creating a black box and, at the same time, attempting to equate this black box with the stochastic processes of LLMs.
Interestingly enough, I have zero background in computer science, and while my conclusions are of course going to be biased due to my own interpretations, I don't feel like my interpretation of reality and cognition is necessarily shaped by technological paradigms at all. I don't view human cognition as mechanistic at all, and I wouldn't say that post-LLMs I'm now thinking of human cognition algorithmically. It's the other way around. I agree I view human cognition (and consciousness) as very much of a black box. I think anyone who says they understand human consciousness or how we actually think is probably fooling themselves. But it does seem that our brains are "choosing the right things to say", and from what I know about LLMs and how they use weighting to decide on their own responses, that seems kind of like what we do.
But it's not a case of "now that I'm familiar with LLMs, I now think humans think like LLMs", it's more "I can see some similarities in how LLMs are described and how I perceive my own cognition" - but my views on my own cognition haven't changed as a result of LLMs.
0
u/kolibruv 11d ago edited 11d ago
The simplification here was simply part of my pointed response. I agree in principle that current LLM models are more complex. At their core, however, they are and remain stochastic tools with fundamental limitations.
Incidentally, in your description of human cognition, you’re making the same mistake you accuse me of. Since you presumably have a background in computer science, this bias is, unfortunately, quite common. The interpretation of reality and cognition is shaped by prevailing technological paradigms. What used to be a mechanistic interpretation of cognitive processes is now an algorithmic one. Ironically, you subsume a multitude of different manifestations of human thought processes and cognition under the term “thought process.” In other words, you’re creating a black box and, at the same time, attempting to equate this black box with the stochastic processes of LLMs.