Using system 1 and 2 for AI is ill defined hogwash indeed.
The systems apply for humans and describe conscious and subconscious processing. Without that the entire reference to thinking fast and slow is bullshit.
The systems apply for humans and describe conscious and subconscious processing. Without that the entire reference to thinking fast and slow is bullshit.
Using conscious vs subconscious processing is not however a meaningful definition. Subconscious processing isn’t necessarily fast. Visual processing and sensory integration can be quite slow without any conscious input.
But for example the amygdala is super fast at tagging dangerious situations with emotions.
And humans socialize subconsciously, so all the small talk conversations are all subconsciously generated.
The definition from the book was:
System 1 is subconscious, fast, automatic and relies on heuristics
System 2 is conscious, slow, deliberate and effortful
If he’s defining System 3+ then that kind of specificity could still work, but from what I understand he doesn’t thus making subconscious a poor fit for the systems described.
Saying that danger classification is slow is very clearly false because animals must react fast to danger or die.
You bringing up something bogus like system 3 makes me think this conversation is pointless and Im just chatting with a system 1 that does not have good shortcuts to have a good conversation about this so it's making new up contexts.
These systems exist, if the author you’re referring to is unaware or unwilling to discuss major issues with their classification then that’s a hit to their credibility.
Danger isn’t some universal thing, people are adapted to notice fact moving objects heading towards them quickly very fast. A very dangerous snake isn’t in that category of danger and can take a significant chunk of time to notice after you’ve stopped looking in that direction. Noticing social danger is extremely critical and glacial by any of the metrics previously discussed.
Emotions cover a huge range of complex interactions that depend on many different parts of the brain but hormones are inherently slow to diffuse through the brain. Pair bonding between a mother and child needs to happen, it doesn’t need to happen in 50ms.
If a tiger attacks you, you better react fast, but one strictly human example is noticing and reacting to angry faces.
An angry person comes at you with a bloody hammer you react before you understand what's even happening
I can only assume you have some sort of philosophical objection here, but this is information processing.
Neurons are reacting to a range of chemical signals not just a single neurotransmitter because they don’t map to what CS style neural networks. Understanding the brain requires understanding the nuances not simplified models.