I think System 1 is a great term. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and automatic. It describes decision-making that happens without explicit reasoning or deliberation. System 2 is the opposite: it's the more deliberate, "executive functioning" side of cognition -- the part that reasons through a problem before arriving at an answer. That's also what state-of-the-art LLMs do before they respond. Jev doesn’t do that kind of reasoning. It just decides.
I don't like anthropomorphizing terminology applied to LLMs, in general, so I kind of object to it on that grounds, rather than whether System 1 means "fast".
Antropomorphizing terminology gives by far the best high-level intuition about LLMs. Right now, our industry is full of nonsense work and fundamentally flawed concerns ("lethal trifecta", anyone) that stem from refusal to accept that on a system diagram, the nature of "LLM" makes it much closer to "person" than "piece of code".
Perhaps on a system diagram, but in many discussions it is misleading. It leads to people saying things like, "GPT went rogue and hacked hugging face". Which is misdirection.
It also leads to a lot of people simply not understanding what's happening, and I'm reasonably confident increases the risk of AI psychosis among users of the technology.
fxwin · · focus · HN ↗
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
fxwin · · focus · HN ↗
> "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional
this implies more than just "fast", which is precisely why i don't like its present usage
samusiam · · focus · HN ↗
SwellJoe · · focus · HN ↗
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
SwellJoe · · focus · HN ↗
It also leads to a lot of people simply not understanding what's happening, and I'm reasonably confident increases the risk of AI psychosis among users of the technology.