‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Thinking fast and slow in AI: The role of metacognition (2021)

177 points · 84 comments · teleforce

  1. creativeSlumber · · 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. Shorel · · focus · HN ↗
      That's because an LLM thinks in terms of language, while we think in a different way, then convert the ideas to language. It can be said that language is a tool for the serialization (writing) and deserialization (reading) of human ideas. It is also an incredible useful and powerful tool by itself. This last sentence has been proved true by LLMs themselves. However, since it is working on the serialized version of ideas, I agree with you in that's not the optimal way to think and something not serialized (maybe world models) can be invented that's better for thinking. All this in no way diminishes the usefulness of language and of automated language generation.
      1. virgilp · · focus · HN ↗
        > That's because an LLM thinks in terms of language, while we think in a different way, then convert the ideas to language

        Do we? I just learned from a speaker[1] that we literally need words to recognize emotions. People who have a poor vocabulary have lower emotional intelligence because without being able to attach a word to an emotion, the brain is unable to recognize & process it.

        [1] Dude seemed to be knowledgeable about the subject. He's a specialized trainer, should be educated in this exact field. So hopefully I'm not lying to anyone here :)

        1. globalise83 · · focus · HN ↗
          Sounds uncannily similar to the pseudofacts you hear a lot in Neurolinguistic Programming training courses for sales reps. Would ask for a scientific publication reference on that one.
          1. Shorel · · focus · HN ↗
            It seems to me that idea is rooted in social consensus.

            Someone expresses an emotion but doesn't know how to react to it, their inner group all have an opinion about it, and the consensus is selected as the "appropiate" reaction to it. The individuals who react this way will claim this consensus is the same as emotional intelligence.

            Just as there are also people who react in one way, and completely disregard any external opinion about it. They simply have firm opinions and don't need the consensus.

            I will not comment on who can belong to each group, that's an exercise for the reader.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.