[zer0gravity]

This insight makes one wonder if the same thing applies to humans as well. Are we just the sum of our experiences? Or the architectures of our brains are much more complex and different so that they have more influence on the outputs for the same inputs?

[cal85]

I think it's the latter. We may well have some subsystems that work like LLMs or other current AIs, but the overall system of a human mind seems to work in a fundamentally different way, as it's able to make good creative choices (such as the next word to say) without looking at lots of options.

Consider a chess engine that plays at grandmaster level, i.e. a human grandmaster can sometimes beat it. Even though it's not the best chess engine in the world, it simulates billions of possible scenarios to decide each move. Yet the grandmaster can still beat it sometimes, even though he clearly isn't thinking about billions of possible scenarios. (On the question of whether human brains may in fact unconsciously process billions of possibilities when deciding a chess move, using some neurological process we haven't discovered, I've heard David Deutsch argue this would be thermodynamically impossible as it would require far more energy than the brain consumes.) So the human grandmaster's brain must be doing something else that we don't understand. I think a similar comparison applies with how an LLM and a human choose the next word to say. An LLM has to run a giant statistical search for candidates. Humans seem to be doing something else.

[famouswaffles]

>An LLM has to run a giant statistical search for candidates. Humans seem to be doing something else.

LLMs don't work this way.

[cal85]

Could you elaborate? If my understanding of this is significantly off then I’d appreciate if you could explain.

[famouswaffles]

I mean there's no search. They compute probabilities but it's not a lookup table.