Remember that we have no a priori reason to suspect that there are jumps in the future; humans perform sequential reasoning differently, so comparisons to the brain are just not informative.
In what way do we do it differently than the reasoning models?
I think we have specialized architectures for consciously assessing thoughts, whereas LLMs do the equivalent of rattling off the first thing that comes to mind, and reasoning models do the equivalent of repeatedly feeding back what comes to mind into the input (and rattling off the first thing that comes to mind for that input).
The only evidence I can provide at this point is the similarity of LLMs to humans who don’t pay attention (as first observed in Sarah’s post that I linked in the text). If you want to reject the post based on the lack of evidence for this claim, I think that’s fair.
No I definitely think thought assessment has more to it than just attention. In fact I think you could argue that LLMs’ attention equivalent is already more powerful/accurate than human attention.
In what way do we do it differently than the reasoning models?
I think we have specialized architectures for consciously assessing thoughts, whereas LLMs do the equivalent of rattling off the first thing that comes to mind, and reasoning models do the equivalent of repeatedly feeding back what comes to mind into the input (and rattling off the first thing that comes to mind for that input).
Do you have a pointer for why you think that?
My (admittedly weak) understanding of the neuroscience doesn’t suggest that there’s a specialized mechanism for critique of prior thoughts.
The only evidence I can provide at this point is the similarity of LLMs to humans who don’t pay attention (as first observed in Sarah’s post that I linked in the text). If you want to reject the post based on the lack of evidence for this claim, I think that’s fair.
You mean that the human attention mechanism is the assessor?
No I definitely think thought assessment has more to it than just attention. In fact I think you could argue that LLMs’ attention equivalent is already more powerful/accurate than human attention.