Thread

1. creativeSlumber · 1790580636 · focus · HN ↗

   How relevant is this fast/slow thinking thing with regards to current frontier models?

   I know a large organization who's built their AI framework completely around this concept, and I feel that it's not really meaningful concept with the capabilities of current models.

   1. emp17344 · 1790590650 · focus · HN ↗

      Seems like a terrible idea in the first place to build an entire organization around a single pop-sci book, but that’s just me.

      1. TeMPOraL · 1790591132 · focus · HN ↗

         It's indeed a terrible idea - as in, it's great. You get benefits of cross-marketing: you ride on a popularity of a well-known book, and as you also drive more sales of it, even if you don't have a deal and don't benefit from that directly, you strengthen the loop and solidify your brand.

         This choice doesn't really constrain what the organization can do, either. Pop-sci books have plenty of wiggle room in interpretation, and afford a lot of "you're holding it wrong" dismissals of criticism, that with a bit of clever copywriting, the organization can do absolutely anything and still claim it's embodying the framework/theory of the book.

      2. glial · 1790607690 · focus · HN ↗

         System 1/2 is the pop version, but the fast/slow distinction is prevalent in both RL and computational cognitive science, sometimes going under different names: procedural/deliberative, model-free/model-based, automatic/controlled, associative/rule-based, autonomous/algorithmic, etc.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.