Transformers work for many other tasks, and it seems incredibly likely to me that the expressiveness includes not only game playing, vision, and language, but also other things the brain does. And to bolster this point, the human brain doesn’t use two completely different architectures!
So I’ll reverse the question; why do you think the thought assessor is fundamentally different from other neural functions that we know transformers can do?
I do think the human brain uses two very different algorithms/architectures for thought generation and assessment. But this falls within the “things I’m not trying to justify in this post” category. I think if you reject the conclusion based on this, that’s completely fair. (I acknowledged in the post that the central claim has a shaky foundation. I think the model should get some points because it does a good job retroactively predicting LLM performance—like, why LLMs aren’t already superhuman—but probably not enough points to convince anyone.)
Transformers work for many other tasks, and it seems incredibly likely to me that the expressiveness includes not only game playing, vision, and language, but also other things the brain does. And to bolster this point, the human brain doesn’t use two completely different architectures!
So I’ll reverse the question; why do you think the thought assessor is fundamentally different from other neural functions that we know transformers can do?
I do think the human brain uses two very different algorithms/architectures for thought generation and assessment. But this falls within the “things I’m not trying to justify in this post” category. I think if you reject the conclusion based on this, that’s completely fair. (I acknowledged in the post that the central claim has a shaky foundation. I think the model should get some points because it does a good job retroactively predicting LLM performance—like, why LLMs aren’t already superhuman—but probably not enough points to convince anyone.)