I don't think I am. To be honest, as ideas goes and I swirl it around that empty head of mine, this one ain't half bad given how much immediate resistance it generates.

Other posters already noted other reasons for it, but I will note that you are saying 'similar to autocomplete, but obviously' suggesting you recognize the shape and immediately dismissing it as not the same, because the shape you know in humans is much more evolved and co do more things. Ngl man, as arguments go, it sounds to me like supercharged autocomplete that was allowed to develop over a number of years.

▲

9dev 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair enough. To someone with a background in biology, it sounds like an argument made by a software engineer with no actual knowledge of cognition, psychology, biology, or any related field, jumping to misled conclusions driven only by shallow insights and their own experience in computer science.

Or in other words, this thread sure attracts a lot of armchair experts.

	▲	quesera 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> with no actual knowledge of cognition, psychology, biology ... but we also need to be careful with that assertion, because humans do not understand cognition, psychology, or biology very well. Biology is the furthest developed, but it turns out to be like physics -- superficially and usefully modelable, but fundamental mysteries remain. We have no idea how complete our models are, but they work pretty well in our standard context. If computer engineering is downstream from physics, and cognition is downstream from biology ... well, I just don't know how certain we can be about much of anything. > this thread sure attracts a lot of armchair experts. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into our priors..."