I actually read that one before! Kahneman is overconfident, as we all were before the replication crisis. While most of the psychology field is crumbling and f

I actually read that one before! Kahneman is overconfident, as we all were before the replication crisis. While most of the psychology field is crumbling and filled with bullshit (even though most people didn't catch on yet). There's still _some_ truth lying in there. It might look bad in isolation, but Kahneman's work is one of the few that actually holds up to scrutiny. This post by Scott Alexander is pretty good in summarising the few good bits left. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/heres-why-automaticity-is-real-actually https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/heres-why-automaticity-is-r... --- But regarding the initial point. The goal is not to fully emulate human thinking. It might sound wishy-washy, but there's _obviously_ _some_ truth to the system 1/2 model. It's not perfect! But I think it's useful. We as humans do most decisions without thinking (hard), but we have a way to _switch_ into a more reliable but expensive mode. We see some evidence that artificially inducing LLMs to 'think' more improves their output. So it stands to reason that adding this capability to a model would make it better. And what better way to do it than swallowing the bitter pill and have that decision be made by the model itself, on a case-by-case basis by learning it from data.