Earlier in the article:

> In 2014, when Magee attached electrodes to rodents to record their neural activity,

Good point, this is probably the author assuming a little more context on the reader’s part. The cases where you can record from neurons in humans are very rare (basically only in treatment resistant epilepsy), and most of the work on hippocampus uses rodents

I think ultimately we're going to see structures that start to approximate the Type 1 and Type 2 thinking systems in humans - fast, deterministic models for microsecond and millisecond scale, and something in the current LLM ballpark for tactical and short term. We probably don't have a model that is out of the box good enough for the medium-term and long term planning, I think that's the most obvious gap in this kind of tower-of-hanoi style model stack.

I think the LLM is more like the 'internal monologue'. I am quite unqualified to claim this since I don't have one as far as I can tell, but I understand it's constantly observing and providing 'first draft' thinking approximating LLM quality

An LLM is more like the unconscious part of my brain. It’s my gut. It shits out answers using an ungodly amount of parallel processing and it’s often right.

But it also hallucinates thoughts and beliefs too, and that’s where the conscious parts have to intervene.

But the conscious parts are expensive to run and I can’t multi-task that.

The conscious parts also degrade first when I don’t get enough sleep.

>It seems obvious that a humanoid robot system or other truly general-purpose AI will need a stack of model types that work in concert.

I don't think that much of AI today is obvious, so I'm suspicious of anything that is "obvious" about the future.

OK AI user.

Did it truly take someone else to externalize the mechanics of cognition into a machine for you, for you to become able to notice them and become interested in them?

And then to remain focused on the machine that you see, rather than the machine that you are.

Pitiful.