Yeah I was expecting the article to give an argument to back up this claim by talking about the mechanisms behind LLMs and the mechanisms behind human thought and demonstrating a lack of overlap.
But I don't see any discussion of multilayer perceptrons or multi-head attention.
Instead, the rest of the article is just saying "it's a con" with a lot of words.
But I don't see any discussion of multilayer perceptrons or multi-head attention.
Instead, the rest of the article is just saying "it's a con" with a lot of words.