> I'm not convinced that "actual logic and thought" aren't just about inferring what comes next statistically based on experience.

Often they are the exact opposite. Entire fields of math and science talk about this. Causation vs correlation, confirmation bias, base rate fallacy, bayesian reasoning, sharp shooter fallacy, etc.

All of those were developed because “inferring from experience” leads you to the wrong conclusion.

▲

theptip 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Bayesian reasoning is just another algorithm for predicting from experience (aka your prior).

I took the GP to be making a general point about the power of “next x prediction” rather than the algorithm a human would run when you say they are “inferring from experience”. (I may be assuming my own beliefs of course.)

Eg even LeCun’s rejection of LLMs to build world models is still running a predictor, just in latent space (so predicting next world-state, instead of next-token).

And of course, under the Predictive Processing model there is a comprehensive explanation of human cognition as hierarchical predictors. So it’s a plausible general model.

	▲	Swizec 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> under the Predictive Processing model there is a comprehensive explanation of human cognition as hierarchical predictors It’s plausible! But keep in mind humans have been explaining ourselves in terms of the current most advanced technology for centuries. We used to be kinda like clockwork, then a bit like a steam engine, then a lot like computers, and now we’re just like AI. That’s why you blow a gasket or fuse, release some steam, reboot your life, do brain dump, feel like a cog in the machine, get your wires crossed, etc