It's an interesting read and a thought provoking idea. The authors definitely make a good point, but it's not really a scientific piece of work as they lack the quantitative analysis and even fail to describe the method used for jabberyfication.
They also tend to overextend this idea to human intelligence:
"We think a more promising approach lies in studying
how our pattern-matching minds are extended by cognitive prostheses which allow us to formulate and manipulate progressively more abstract and larger patterns."
I would put it the other way around: how our cognitive system can delegate some of the processing to simple pattern matching prostheses? When I think of concepts such as LLMs there is more than pattern matching of all that I read about them, but there is a vague idea of what they are, how they are build and how I feel about them, and the name "LLM" is just a simple tag for this concept. I am wondering what cognitive scientist would make of this paper.
They also tend to overextend this idea to human intelligence:
"We think a more promising approach lies in studying how our pattern-matching minds are extended by cognitive prostheses which allow us to formulate and manipulate progressively more abstract and larger patterns."
I would put it the other way around: how our cognitive system can delegate some of the processing to simple pattern matching prostheses? When I think of concepts such as LLMs there is more than pattern matching of all that I read about them, but there is a vague idea of what they are, how they are build and how I feel about them, and the name "LLM" is just a simple tag for this concept. I am wondering what cognitive scientist would make of this paper.
reply