[error_logic]

In my experience it's not even dismissing the humanity of others, it's recognizing their own minds following similar patterns.

In my youth I lacked the confidence to speak without a sentence "pre-written" in my mind and would stall out if I ran out of written material. It caused delays in conversation and lagging sometimes minutes behind the chatter of peers.

Since I've gained more experience and confidence in adulthood I can talk normally and trust that the sentence will "work itself out" but it seems like most people gloss over that implicit trust in their own impulses. It really gets in the way to be too self-conscious so I can understand it being something most people would benefit from being able to ignore...selfishly, at least. Lots of stupidity from people not thinking through the cumulative/collective effects of their actions if everyone follows the same patterns, though.

[daveguy]

I think a lot of this confidence that the sentence will "work itself out" has to do with being able to frame a general direction of the thought before you start, but not have the precise sentence. It takes advantage of the continual parallel processing humans perform in their brain. Confidence in a simple structure of what you expect to convey. When LLMs are able to generate this kind of dynamic structure from a separate logical/heuristic process + fill in the blanks efficiently, then I think we are getting close to AGI. That's a very Chomsky informed view of sentence structure and human communication, but I believe it is correct. Currently the future tokens are dependent on the probabilistic next token rather than having the outline of a structure determined from the start (sentence or idea structure). When LLMs are able to incorporate the structured outline I think we will be much closer to an AGI, but that is an algorithmic problem we have not been able to figure out and one that may not be feasible until we have parallel processing equivalent to a human brain.