Test time compute reminds me of this artistic image. We are asking the model to look inside and unfold and tug on the compressed knotted threads and see which ones are useful.
Thinking evolved in creatures only to help correlate the past to future, using some memory from the past. The correlations and responses gradually get codified into instincts and genes to help bypass the thinking, which is costly and slow.
Human thinking is considered a bad situation if the thinking goes beyond what's immediately needed, or if it makes the mind unavailable to process inputs from the senses. Any person who is lost in thought is in reality suffering from a lack of coordination between their body and mind, as their mind is no longer serving their body. It is not unusual that thinking considered same as worrying, as it indicates that person is unable to process information or concerned about something.
Costly, sure, but slow? Like for that to be the case you would need to compare it to something, and you can't, as there is no apples to oranges comparison. Instincts are not an alternative, it's a layered system and we have plenty of instinctual thoughts interconnecting the two. Instincts can't learn "at runtime".
Also, "moods"/flight or fight, etc are all precursors to thinking, and they seems to be very viable all across the animal kingdom. Filtering information (e.g. not interpreting "pain" signals during an emergency situation) also seems to be an excellent idea.
Does "human thinking" have negatives? Sure, so does the "design" of air and food entering the body at the same orifice, but "evolution" quite clearly seems to be fine with either.
I’ve always felt it’s unfair that people attribute the “System 1/System 2” dual-reasoning idea to KT. Their research was mostly behavioral, and many of their classic psychology experiments (Linda problem, law of small numbers, representativeness bias, etc.) never mentioned two systems. The dual-process framework only emerged around the 2000s in cognitive psychology and neuroscience (e.g., Jonathan Evans, Keith Stanovich), which later provided brain-based evidence for it.
When the book came out, KT basically retrofitted their earlier behavioral work into this newer two-system framework. The book made the distinction famous, but that wasn’t really KT’s original contribution. Their biggest impact was bringing psychology into economics, i.e., prospect theory, alternative utility functions, and ultimately the creation of behavioral economics. I think people often don’t give enough credit to what they actually pioneered, and instead celebrate them for concepts they didn’t really originate.
Lillian’s blog is extremely good in general & if it’s new to you I suggest checking out the other posts also. I particularly enjoyed the one on human data.
10 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 32.6 ms ] threadhttps://replicationindex.com/2020/12/30/a-meta-scientific-pe...
Some humans can.
https://youtube.com/shorts/A2-I7tjl70w
Test time compute reminds me of this artistic image. We are asking the model to look inside and unfold and tug on the compressed knotted threads and see which ones are useful.
https://ibb.co/hRWC2S0V
Human thinking is considered a bad situation if the thinking goes beyond what's immediately needed, or if it makes the mind unavailable to process inputs from the senses. Any person who is lost in thought is in reality suffering from a lack of coordination between their body and mind, as their mind is no longer serving their body. It is not unusual that thinking considered same as worrying, as it indicates that person is unable to process information or concerned about something.
Costly, sure, but slow? Like for that to be the case you would need to compare it to something, and you can't, as there is no apples to oranges comparison. Instincts are not an alternative, it's a layered system and we have plenty of instinctual thoughts interconnecting the two. Instincts can't learn "at runtime".
Also, "moods"/flight or fight, etc are all precursors to thinking, and they seems to be very viable all across the animal kingdom. Filtering information (e.g. not interpreting "pain" signals during an emergency situation) also seems to be an excellent idea.
Does "human thinking" have negatives? Sure, so does the "design" of air and food entering the body at the same orifice, but "evolution" quite clearly seems to be fine with either.
When the book came out, KT basically retrofitted their earlier behavioral work into this newer two-system framework. The book made the distinction famous, but that wasn’t really KT’s original contribution. Their biggest impact was bringing psychology into economics, i.e., prospect theory, alternative utility functions, and ultimately the creation of behavioral economics. I think people often don’t give enough credit to what they actually pioneered, and instead celebrate them for concepts they didn’t really originate.
Why? I guess it comes down to ability. The ability to see thoughts. The ability to choose the next thought to some degree maybe.