3 ms·

I would say that the fact that LLMs are language models is what would make one argue that they are left brain (or whatever constellation of traits are associate

I would say that the fact that LLMs are language models is what would make one argue that they are left brain (or whatever constellation of traits are associated with that half of the split). In general, the other side is considered non-language oriented (e.g. symbolic, emotional, intuitive). I doubt you or your friends would agree that LLMs are more intuitive or emotional than you. I think the old association with "creativity" with the right brain might be misleading. For example, for some people there is a huge difference between being able to vomit out rhyming couplets in any language and being able to write a poem like Homer's ‎Odyssey. Another distinction one could use is that between "craft" and "art". It isn't that LLMs can't be skillful at manipulating words into pretty patterns, it's that the patterns ultimately have no connection to a larger narrative (unless explicitly directed by human instruction). At any rate, I would find it hard to agree with anyone who suggested that LLMs show any kind of "intuition" but I'd be interested if you can give concrete examples from your own use.

SonOfLilit 2y ago
I don't understand System 1/2 as related to left/right, more to immediate answers vs planning, or say policy vs tree search in AlphaGo. When trying to solve a leetcode problem, I will "come up" (this step is atomic) with a possible solution, then think it through and figure out its weaknesses and come up with an amended solution. GPT4 beats me at the first part, but sucks at the second, even when specifically instructed to examine the wrong output its code gave and reflect on it.
- zoogeny 2y ago
  I agree that System 1/2 doesn't map directly onto the right/left brain. One of McGilchrist's points is that our society has almost completely turned to relying on analytical and critical thinking. As a programmer, for example, we are often taught to quantify our problems (e.g. gather metrics), and then use reason/logic/rationality to arrive at efficient solutions. For that reason, I think it is hard for us to even understand what is being talked about by "right brain" kind of activities. One example that is helpful is to consider walking down a dark street at night. All of a sudden you feel uneasy and you become alert and you start to carefully examine your surroundings. It is that "feeling of unease" that is being pointed to, the sense of something being brought into your awareness. Another example is how an artist, for example a painter, will stand back and look at a painting in progress and decide "is this done?". If you are at the stage of "solve a leetcode problem" you are already 100% in left brain territory. Perhaps consider moments as a programmer where you get a feeling "something here isn't right". I don't mean, some test is obviously failing, I mean you suddenly feel some aspect of a situation is "off" and you realize you need to direct your attention towards it without any external warning. Then consider: could an LLM have that same kind of intuition?
  - SonOfLilit 2y ago
    I don't think this is different than me looking at a leetcode problem and thinking "this has to be a binary tree of subproducts" (totally wrong solution in that case). Which is why I think it's the only kind of thinking LLMs are good at. Remember how we used to ask GPT3.5 "how much is 42*35?" and it would reply "The answer is 1305. Lets do the math:" and then come up with a calculation with enough mistakes to be able to arrive at that wrong final solution it guessed at first? That first guess is exactly System 1.

SonOfLilit 2y ago

I don't understand System 1/2 as related to left/right, more to immediate answers vs planning, or say policy vs tree search in AlphaGo. When trying to solve a leetcode problem, I will "come up" (this step is atomic) with a possible solution, then think it through and figure out its weaknesses and come up with an amended solution. GPT4 beats me at the first part, but sucks at the second, even when specifically instructed to examine the wrong output its code gave and reflect on it.

zoogeny 2y ago
I agree that System 1/2 doesn't map directly onto the right/left brain. One of McGilchrist's points is that our society has almost completely turned to relying on analytical and critical thinking. As a programmer, for example, we are often taught to quantify our problems (e.g. gather metrics), and then use reason/logic/rationality to arrive at efficient solutions. For that reason, I think it is hard for us to even understand what is being talked about by "right brain" kind of activities. One example that is helpful is to consider walking down a dark street at night. All of a sudden you feel uneasy and you become alert and you start to carefully examine your surroundings. It is that "feeling of unease" that is being pointed to, the sense of something being brought into your awareness. Another example is how an artist, for example a painter, will stand back and look at a painting in progress and decide "is this done?". If you are at the stage of "solve a leetcode problem" you are already 100% in left brain territory. Perhaps consider moments as a programmer where you get a feeling "something here isn't right". I don't mean, some test is obviously failing, I mean you suddenly feel some aspect of a situation is "off" and you realize you need to direct your attention towards it without any external warning. Then consider: could an LLM have that same kind of intuition?
- SonOfLilit 2y ago
  I don't think this is different than me looking at a leetcode problem and thinking "this has to be a binary tree of subproducts" (totally wrong solution in that case). Which is why I think it's the only kind of thinking LLMs are good at. Remember how we used to ask GPT3.5 "how much is 42*35?" and it would reply "The answer is 1305. Lets do the math:" and then come up with a calculation with enough mistakes to be able to arrive at that wrong final solution it guessed at first? That first guess is exactly System 1.