Comment by Retric
10 hours ago
That’s a function of the amount of processing power involved not the underlying architecture of decision making.
10 hours ago
That’s a function of the amount of processing power involved not the underlying architecture of decision making.
In terms of making an LLM faster but not in terms of meta-cognition. System 1 thinking as defined by Kahneman doesn’t have 100000x more compute than System 2, it is actually the opposite. That completely contradicts your claim
>System 1 thinking as defined by Kahneman doesn’t have 100000x more compute than System 2, it is actually the opposite.
When are you measuring?
Systems 1 thinking is closer to precomputed tables in some ways. That is by evolution or massive amounts of training your neural network has a narrow fast path it can execute with as little compute at execution as needed.
Slower paths means loops here for humans where the output of a neuron gets feed back into itself. The fastest path = a feed forward neural network without loops.
LLM’s operate strictly feed forward neural networks.
The ratio between a single pass and multiple passes is unchanged when you throw more processing power at both.
In a human 30ms vs 3-4 seconds is a 1:100 ratio. Single vs multiple passes with an LLM varies but a 1:100 ratio isn’t unrealistic. So with enough compute and the right workload single vs multiple pass LLM could sit in that exact same 30ms vs 3-4 second timeframe.
Multiple passes doesn't make it system 2. The defining characteristic of system 2 is consciousness which is expensive and slows down the system.
So to talk about system 2 in AI we need to talk about consciousness. As long as AI is not officially conscious there is no System 2 thinking implemented
2 replies →