"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Not sure about that, I'd more say the Western reductionism here is the assumption that all thinking / modeling is primarily linguistic and conscious. This article is NOT clearly falling into this trap.

A more "Eastern" perspective might recognize that much deep knowledge cannot be encoded linguistically ("The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao", etc.), and there is more broad recognition of the importance of unconscious processes and change (or at least more skepticism of the conscious mind). Freud was the first real major challenge to some of this stuff in the West, but nowadays it is more common than not for people to dismiss the idea that unconscious stuff might be far more important than the small amount of things we happen to notice in the conscious mind.

The (obviously false) assumptions about the importance of conscious linguistic modeling are what lead to people say (obviously false) things like "How do you know your thinking isn't actually just like LLM reasoning?".

Or the opposite, that humans are somehow super special and not as simple as a prediction feedback loop with randomizations.

How do you manage to get that from the article?

>"Westerners are trying so hard to prove that there is nothing special about humans."

I am not really fond of us "westerners", but judjing how many "easterners" treat their populace they seem to confirm the point

you realize ankit is from india and i'm from singapore right lol

another "noahpinion"