In general, the terms “LLM-like” and “human-like” are used all over the place, and in contrast with each other, but they’re never actually defined. It all just seems more vibes-based than anything else.
And “treating the human cognitive process like it’s similar to the LLM cognitive process might lead to a society where epistemics turns into a discipline where plausibility is an acceptable substitute for empiricism” has got to be one of the most ridiculous notions I’ve ever read in a paper (ctrl+F “fifth pathway is epistemic” for the exact quote).
I think I experienced this when I learned about LLMs, chain of thought, thinking tokens, short-term memory context, and long-term memory context. I began applying these concepts to real life and reasoning about how our brains work as if these concepts described how our brains actually function. But maybe this is more akin to the Tetris effect?
Now most LLMs do multiplication using a tool call to a programming language, akin to a person reaching for a calculator rather than relying on a learned table or working the problem out mentally.
The high level comparison between what LLMs do and what humans do" for this example is fairly parallel.
I don’t think this way of thinking started with LLM. Does Systems Based Thinking also attribute too little mind to humans?
If scientists make green jelly that emits thoughtful judgements, humans will be compared to green jelly.