And tbf, human conversation that goes on too long can follow the same pattern, though models are disadvantaged by their context length.
Imagine someone asked you to keep talking forever, but every 5 minutes they hit you in the head and you had no memory except from that point onwards.
I'm sure I'd sound deranged, too.
- Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI https://twitter.com/sama/status/1599471830255177728
But I’m sure he was joking. If he wasn’t, I’m sure he’s not actually reasonably involved. If he is, I’m sure he just didn’t mean that cognition was essentially a stochastic parrot.
It’s pretty obvious what the people pushing LLM-style AI think about the human brain.
I mean, I know a lot of that is simply the financial incentives of people whose job it is to push the Overton window of LLMs being recognized as legal beings equivalent to humans so that their training data is no longer subject to claims of copyright infringement (because it's simply "learning as a human mind would") but it also seems there's a deep seated human biological imperative being hacked here. The sociology behind the way people react to LLMs is fascinating.
Also cognition. Is this the same as understanding or is thinking a better synonym?
Can you think of any examples from before say 2010 where there would be any reason for a human to wonder whether another party engaged in a coherent conversation has any reason to assume they were not engaged with another hunan?