[aithrowawaycomm]

AI researchers need to learn what terms like "theory of mind" actually mean before they write dumb crap like this. Theory of mind is about attributing mental states to others, not information. What Norvig has done here is present a logic puzzle, one that works equally well when the agents are Prolog programs instead of clever children. There's no "mind" in this puzzle at all. Norvig is being childishly ignorant to call this "theory of mind." It's hard to overstate my contempt for this kind of useless junk science, especially when it comes from an impressive pedigree.

Of course he is hardly the only offender: arrogant disregard for psychology is astonishingly common among LLM researchers. Maybe they should turn off ChatGPT and read a book.

[sitkack]

Hell, Norvig could have asked any of the LLMs if this was a good theory of mind test.

CS researchers do partake in some pretty low quality science.

My fav is AI researchers arrogantly rediscovering learning theory and pedagogy.

[AdieuToLogic]

> AI researchers need to learn what terms like "theory of mind" actually mean before they write dumb crap like this.

> Of course he is hardly the only offender: arrogant disregard for psychology is astonishingly common among LLM researchers. Maybe they should turn off ChatGPT and read a book.

Perhaps this[0] book? It is one of the seminal texts on AI topics. Maybe Norvig should read it.

0 - http://aima.cs.berkeley.edu/

[immibis]

People who fail theory of mind may assume everyone else knows something because they know it.