[lukev]

So, in one sense I agree with you. There is zero evidence that the human brain runs separate systems for separate types of cognition.

On the other hand, the reason this idea is sticky is because it matches our conscious experience. In some situations, we respond intuitively. In other situations, we choose to work analytically using tools like research, deliberation, note-taking, etc.

I think it's this second sense in which people are using the term with respect to LLMs. And it's not a terrible analogy.

However, comparing "neural networks" to actual neurons is almost never useful.

[lukev]

Oh, and to be pedantic:

> he observation that a O(n^2) problem can be broken down into n separate O(n) problems is ultimately due to system 1 reasoning: it is obviously true.

As the parent of a third grader just learning this stuff, I can assure you it isn't immediately obvious to everyone.

[atq2119]

It's also not really true.

Consider a problem like edit distance, which is solved using an n^2 dynamic program. What are the n separate problems there?

Sure, you're filling out a table with a nested loop, but that's a very mechanistic view. I don't believe that treating the n outer iterations as separate problems gives any real insight.