That part seems to make sense, but I cannot rightly comprehend the confusion that follows.
Some psychology researchers are claiming it has become a model of human cognition? (Because it can imitate the way a psychology study participant answers psychology study questions?)
Other psychology researchers are disputing this by testing its reaction time and digit span memory? (Are they administering an iq test? A cranial nerves exam?)
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060830131222/http://www.vanemd...
Current HN post points to a different article, which points to that science article; perhaps the HN post’s link should be updated.
lewdwig•6h ago
Where do people derive their certainty, which seems to me largely misplaced?
allears•5h ago
These fields are making remarkable strides, but they're still in their infancy. Whoever writes these breathless press releases, they probably have a degree in marketing.
jedimastert•5h ago
The unearned confidence of tech bros should be studied
senectus1•5h ago
add-sub-mul-div•4h ago
windowshopping•1h ago
Is ChatGPT a human mind?
monkaiju•4h ago
joe_the_user•2h ago
Wait a second. Certainly being confident of some claim of understanding some very-not-understood thing is dubious.
But consider some rando who says "I understand X very-not-understood-thing" without strong evidence of one sort or another. Yes I feel moderately confident they are wrong. And I think your statement is presently a rather problematic false-equivalence between these situations.
somenameforme•4m ago