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.
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.