The tech is very cool but for the love of Gaia stop calling it system one, even Kahneman said this (S1/2) is a framework for understanding the brains inner workings. There is no autonomous system to speak of.
Ok sorry for the unprompted rant but you're absolutely right, though it's far from "new" and not really a problem (IMHO). AI even beat neuroscience to this one, funnily enough! All of the below dyads are congruent:
--- Phil & [Pre-]CogSci ---
| rational | intuitive |
| reason | understanding | (Kant & Hegel's goofy wording)
| deductive | inductive |
| animated | automatic | (from ~Aristotle, ultimately)
| ~higher | ~lower | (as in "higher faculties")
--- CS & AI ---
| logical | analogical |
| symbolic | stochastic |
| Neats | Scruffies | (related academic 'camps')
| ~deterministic | ~non-determnistic | (a common heuristic)
| Good Ol' Fashioned AI (GOFAI) | Evil Datacenter AI (EDAI) | (a common honorific)
--- Modern [Cog-]Neuro[-Psych] ---
| slow thinking | fast thinking |
| S2 | S1 |
...ok I assumed I knew more but maybe I don't? Would love to hear from experts!
--- Colloquial ---
| left brain | right brain |
| intelligence | wisdom |
| intention | instinct |
| me | AD[H]D |
At least that's how I see it. Hopefully it goes without saying that there's plenty of nuance specific to each of those pairs, and that many of the relevant experts would balk at this broad characterization. That said... I'm right and they're wrong, I guess!
If anyone is in the mood to stomach a paper written by someone who did horrible things with Epstein a few decades later, this is sadly still the best in the biz: <a href="https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~mauro.roisenberg/ine6102/leituras/artis03.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~mauro.roisenberg/ine6102/leituras/a...
If you prefer geniuses that aren't arguably monsters, this is the core of what Gary Marcus' "neurosymbolic" thing is about.
Brains aside, it S1/S2 seems like a good description?
System 1 is quick and intuitive. System 2 is slow and deliberate.
Compared to models that compose responses with many forward passes, thinking in token space, these models make a quick decision after processing their inputs.
It’s ok to use it as inspiration, but using the term comes with psychological baggage in an industry that already abuses anthropomorphism. Give it an informative name
System 1 is quite informative about what it's for. It means it's a system designed for bounded time quick classification, vs. agentic unbounded or slow thinking with scratchpads and tools.
Does it inject thoughts into system 2 without system 2 knowing about it? Does it have instinctive social skills? Can it do instinctive arithmetic? The list goes on, there’s a nice book about it…
Were people getting their pants tied up in knots like this over names like daemon programs (a term that carries "baggage" of its own) and installation wizards (which, to my knowledge, do not actually invoke in the arcane)?
khalic · · focus · HN ↗
Zarathruster · · focus · HN ↗
khalic · · focus · HN ↗
bbor · · focus · HN ↗
If anyone is in the mood to stomach a paper written by someone who did horrible things with Epstein a few decades later, this is sadly still the best in the biz: <a href="https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~mauro.roisenberg/ine6102/leituras/artis03.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~mauro.roisenberg/ine6102/leituras/a...
If you prefer geniuses that aren't arguably monsters, this is the core of what Gary Marcus' "neurosymbolic" thing is about.
rgbrgb · · focus · HN ↗
robrenaud · · focus · HN ↗
System 1 is quick and intuitive. System 2 is slow and deliberate.
Compared to models that compose responses with many forward passes, thinking in token space, these models make a quick decision after processing their inputs.
khalic · · focus · HN ↗
aoeusnth1 · · focus · HN ↗
khalic · · focus · HN ↗
in-silico · · focus · HN ↗