hoppp

Yeah, pair bonding doesn't happen instantly but thats also not about processing and reacting to signals, it also involves the endocrine system as you say, so it's not an information processing system in the same sense.

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

Reaction to danger must be fast, otherwise the animal dies.

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.

Not all subconscious processing is fast, for sure.

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

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 difference in humans is consciousness. System 1 is subconscious and fast, system 2 is conscious and slow.

System 1 can do multiple passes and all that, the speed is related to how aware are you of the computation occuring and system 2 must be consciously managed.

Example: You write a quick reply to a comment - thats system 1

You add two four digit numbers in your head - that will be system 2 unless you are very good, then it can be system 1 also

Why? Because memory allocations and addition computations are manually managed.

Its just hype talk. Slow mode is conscious in humans, fast is subconscious, so we need to discuss AI consciousness to talk about system 2 thinking.

So the entire debate is fubar.

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

Not relevant at all. Its a way to hype.

Most humans have weak meta-cognition, a large percentage doesn't have verbal thoughts.

Meta-cognition makes sense in a dynamic and updatable and modular system, for example I can monitor thoughts coming from my amygdala with my prefrontal cortex and then adjust how I process these thoughts.

In LLMs it makes zero sense, even if you feed the output of one model into another, there is no way they can update the heuristics behind how those were computed.

This is amazing. I really could use this.

I like the idea of System one models but all LLMs so far work as system 1 thinking because humans generate speech subconsciously with system 1.

System 2 thinking requires consciousness which AI does not have, so even reasoning models are still system 1 thinking as system 1 in humans has reasoning with heuristics.

Its limited but most people navigate the world with it completely, so it's enough for AI.

I'm happy to hear that because their business model of selling ready available components is pretty much dead due to AI.

Shopify gets to control a large portion of the CSS UI market that AI so eagerly generates. Good for them

Generally when talking about colored functions, I think of an example like "async function" in javascript, those are definitely different colored.

I don't know about what would constitute as colored function in go as I generally don't consider arguments to be function colors.

Maybe methods in go would be different colored functions when they are defined on different struct types.

Thanks! Lots of information for me to learn about.

I assumed they can occupy the same space due to superposition principle, as waves could stack and modulate each other, sort of like wave A and wave B occupying the same space could produce a wave A+B

So a singular point would be the sum of all waves occupying the space.

But maybe gravity or spacetime itself is a recursive function and black holes are functions without a base case and there is no singular point, only non-terminating recursion.

Some ideas to funnel into AI so I can entertain myself hah

I am not very well versed in the subject but

if quantum objects can fall and multiple quantum waves can occupy the same space, then why doesn't everything always collapse into a single point?

Why does it only happen in black holes and outside of that quantum waves instead create emergent systems instead of just collapsing together?

Does high gravitational force nullify emergence in space/time?

Might be a stupid question. I don't study this subject much.

I think the business is to get people running AI businesses to buy stuff from them. You gave them $3200 that could be somebody else's profit.

I think it is them running agents for marketing purposes.

Who else would be burning tokens on this?

Fraser.name is taken so I really hope he took it

Its just gonna get worse over time.

So its pretty much abandoneware?

It's from stupidlabs.lol Made for stupid people?

Not sure if it's worth it. I don't see them complaining about speed and they use specific python dependencies then they would need to translate that to rust also.

And now the 96 memory slots need individual cooling.

They edited the original comment, first they wrote heroin to which I responded.

In some form yes, but a psychopath can be also autistic, dyslexic or neurotypical but psychopathy by itself is not considered a neurotype.

Heroin? That was not discovered till acetylation was invented in the 19th century.

Its an addiction, just like a lot of things.

The romans had society. No tobacco or coffee

Psychopath is not considered a neurotype

Unspoken rules have no name, they are learned implicitly

You are right, thats not what I should have written there.