
Humans vs AI : The Surprising Truth About How We Think Differently
What truly separates the way you think from how an AI like a large language model operates? Imagine trying to teach a child to recognize a dog. With just a few examples, they'd quickly grasp the concept, connecting it to their sensory experiences and even emotions. Now compare that to an AI, which would need to analyze thousands—if not millions—of images to achieve a similar result, and even then, it wouldn't 'understand' what a dog is in the way you do. This stark human vs AI thinking difference highlights a deeper truth: while humans and AI can produce similar outputs, the paths they take to get there are worlds apart. Understanding these differences isn't just a matter of curiosity—it's essential for navigating a future where AI plays an increasingly central role in our lives.
In this exploration, the IBM Technology team delve into the fascinating contrasts between human cognition and the mechanics of large language models (LLMs). From how we learn and process information to the way we reason and handle errors, the distinctions are both striking and revealing. You'll discover why your brain's dynamic adaptability gives you an edge in creativity and context, while an LLM's raw computational power allows it to process vast amounts of data at lightning speed. By the end, you'll not only grasp how these systems differ but also gain insights into how their unique strengths can complement each other in fantastic ways. After all, understanding these contrasts isn't just about comparing—it's about imagining what's possible when human ingenuity and AI precision work hand in hand. Human vs AI Cognition Learning: Neuroplasticity vs Backpropagation
Human learning is driven by neuroplasticity, where your brain adapts and reorganizes its neural connections with relatively minimal exposure to new concepts. This adaptability enables you to generalize knowledge and apply it flexibly across various situations. For example, you can learn a new skill, such as playing a musical instrument, and transfer that understanding to related tasks, like composing music.
In contrast, LLMs rely on backpropagation, a computational process that adjusts millions or even billions of parameters to minimize errors during training. This process requires vast datasets and significant computational resources. Unlike your ability to learn incrementally, LLMs cannot adapt to new information without undergoing a complete retraining process. Once trained, their parameters are fixed, limiting their ability to dynamically incorporate new knowledge. Processing: Parallel vs Sequential
Your brain processes information in parallel, integrating sensory inputs, emotions, and abstract concepts simultaneously. This parallel processing allows you to quickly grasp the broader context of a situation and make informed decisions. For instance, when navigating a busy street, you simultaneously process visual cues, sounds, and spatial awareness to ensure your safety.
LLMs, however, process information sequentially. They break down text into discrete units called tokens and predict the next token based on patterns learned during training. While this sequential approach enables LLMs to generate coherent and contextually appropriate text, it lacks the holistic understanding that your brain naturally applies. This limitation means LLMs excel at tasks requiring linear progression but struggle with tasks demanding multidimensional context. Human vs AI Thinking Styles Compared
Watch this video on YouTube.
Advance your skills in AI intelligence by reading more of our detailed content. Memory: Context-Driven vs Static
Human memory operates dynamically across multiple levels—sensory, working, and long-term. This dynamic system allows you to associate new information with past experiences, recall relevant details, and adapt your understanding as new contexts arise. For example, you might remember a childhood lesson about fire safety and apply it instinctively when faced with a dangerous situation.
LLMs, by comparison, have a limited 'context window,' which restricts the amount of information they can actively process at any given moment. Beyond this window, they rely on static knowledge encoded during training. Unlike your memory, which evolves with experience and adapts to new information, LLMs cannot update their knowledge without retraining the entire model. This static nature limits their ability to respond to rapidly changing or nuanced contexts. Reasoning: Intuition and Logic vs Statistical Prediction
When reasoning, you engage two complementary systems: intuitive (System 1) and analytical (System 2) thinking. System 1 enables you to make quick, instinctive decisions, such as recognizing a familiar face in a crowd. System 2, on the other hand, allows for deliberate, logical problem-solving, such as solving a complex mathematical equation. Together, these systems help you navigate complex situations with both speed and depth.
LLMs simulate reasoning by generating statistically plausible sequences of text based on their training data. However, they lack genuine understanding or the ability to engage in conscious thought. While their outputs may appear logical, they are ultimately the result of pattern recognition rather than true reasoning. This distinction underscores the importance of human oversight when interpreting or applying AI-generated outputs. Error: Confabulation vs Hallucination
Humans occasionally confabulate, unknowingly creating false memories or explanations to fill gaps in understanding. This is a natural byproduct of your brain's effort to make sense of incomplete information. For example, you might misremember the details of an event but still retain the general context.
Similarly, LLMs 'hallucinate,' producing confident but factually incorrect outputs when their training data lacks sufficient context or accuracy. Unlike humans, LLMs cannot self-correct or verify their outputs. Your ability to reflect and reason often allows you to identify and rectify errors more effectively than an LLM. This difference highlights the need for careful validation of AI-generated information. Embodiment: Sensory Experiences vs Disembodiment
Your cognition is deeply influenced by your physical interactions with the world. Sensory experiences—sight, touch, sound, and more—shape your understanding and allow you to learn through direct exploration. For instance, you might learn the concept of 'hot' by touching a warm surface and associating the sensation with the word.
LLMs, on the other hand, are disembodied systems. They rely exclusively on textual data and lack sensory inputs. Without physical experiences, LLMs cannot ground their 'understanding' in reality. This disembodiment limits their ability to perceive the world as you do, making them highly effective at processing text but unable to fully replicate human experiential learning. Using Human and AI Strengths
While both humans and LLMs can produce similar outputs, the processes driving those outputs are fundamentally different. Human cognition is rooted in comprehension, context, and sensory experiences, while LLMs excel in speed and pattern recognition across vast datasets. By understanding these differences, you can better use the strengths of both systems. Combining human insight with AI efficiency offers opportunities to achieve outcomes that neither could accomplish alone. This synergy has the potential to transform fields such as education, healthcare, and scientific research, where the unique capabilities of humans and AI can complement one another to solve complex challenges.
Media Credit: IBM Technology Filed Under: AI, Guides
Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals
Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Auto Blog
Is Your State On The List? The Top 10 States Rideshare Users Are Losing Patience
Uber and Lyft are not impressing everyone Ridesharing is becoming increasingly common, and companies like Waymo and Tesla are advancing the service by integrating autonomous technology. However, a new study reveals that some states are far better than others when it comes to this platform's customer support. Blakely Law Firm analyzed online search trends across all 50 U.S. states for over 10 keywords related to 'Uber Customer Support' and 'Lyft Customer Support.' 0:09 / 0:09 The top 10 best value used cars in 2025 Watch More Using data from Google Keyword Planner, the research identified where rideshare users are most actively seeking help, ranking states based on average monthly support-related searches per 100,000 residents. The top ten states where riders are most desperately seeking support, ranked from worst to best, were Georgia, New York, Maryland, Nevada, Illinois, Florida, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Texas. Uber headquarters, California — Source: Getty New York is having a rough time with ridesharing Regarding the second-worst ranked state, New York, a spokesperson at Blakeley Law Firm said: 'New York is showing a clear sign of growing frustration among rideshare users who are increasingly turning to the internet in search of customer support. Behind each search is a rider facing an unresolved issue—whether it's a billing error, a safety concern, or a lost item. The high concentration of support-related searches in this state suggests deeper systemic concerns with how quickly and effectively these services respond to user needs. To improve the customer experience and restore rider trust, it's essential for rideshare companies operating in New York to invest in more accessible support channels, streamline issue resolution processes, and provide clearer guidance to users facing challenges.' New York City residents also face expensive rideshare service charges, with a one-way run from Manhattan to JFK costing anywhere from $75 to over $100. However, the state's unfavorable placement at the top of this study's rankings could be partially attributed to how companies like Lyft and Uber treat their drivers. Lyft app — Source: Getty Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. A Bloomberg investigation last October found that Uber and Lyft routinely locked drivers out of their apps to erase some of the drivers' working time from records, allowing the companies to boost profits and circumvent New York City's minimum pay rule. The city's minimum pay rule for rideshare drivers is based on the ratio of time spent driving versus waiting. Locking workers out of the apps made it appear as if drivers were busier, reducing the minimum amounts Uber and Lyft had to pay. This week, New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission voted to raise minimum pay standards for Uber and Lyft drivers by 5% and adopt new regulations curbing app lockouts. Final thoughts While states like New York were surveyed as struggling with rideshare service satisfaction among customers, recent changes to New York City laws aiding drivers could boost the platform's quality of service, reducing the likelihood of problems emerging requiring customer support. Still, according to the survey, companies like Uber and Lyft need to improve response times in several states and provide more precise guidance to those seeking assistance. It's also fair to wonder why these resources weren't available when these two companies posted their strongest financial results ever in 2024. Uber and Lyft's reported customer service struggles in states like Georgia also give emerging autonomous rideshare players, such as Waymo, a chance to enter these markets and gain traction with quality rider support. About the Author Cody Carlson View Profile


North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Energy sector set to discuss how National Grid can meet AI demand
The AI Energy Council are set to discuss how much power will be needed to cover the increase in computer capacity that is expected in the next five years, as the AI sector grows. The group is made up of energy providers, tech companies, energy regulator Ofgem and will be chaired by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Tech Secretary Peter Kyle. It is thought that sectors that are looking to adopt AI and the impacts those changes could have on the energy demand will also be up for discussion, to try and prepare the energy system for the future. Tech secretary Mr Kyle said that ministers are putting 'British expertise at the heart of the AI breakthroughs which will improve our lives'. He added: 'We are clear-eyed though on the need to make sure we can power this golden era for British AI through responsible, sustainable energy sources. Today's talks will help us drive forward that mission, delivering AI infrastructure which will benefit communities up and down the country for generations to come without ever compromising on our clean energy superpower ambitions.' Earlier this month Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK must persuade a 'sceptical' public that AI can improve lives and transform the way politics and businesses work. In a speech in London, the Prime Minister acknowledged people's concern about the rapid rise of AI technology and the risk to their jobs but stressed the benefits it would have on the delivery of public services, automating bureaucracy and allowing staff such as social workers and nurses to be 'more human'.


South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Energy sector set to discuss how National Grid can meet AI demand
The AI Energy Council are set to discuss how much power will be needed to cover the increase in computer capacity that is expected in the next five years, as the AI sector grows. The group is made up of energy providers, tech companies, energy regulator Ofgem and will be chaired by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Tech Secretary Peter Kyle. It is thought that sectors that are looking to adopt AI and the impacts those changes could have on the energy demand will also be up for discussion, to try and prepare the energy system for the future. Tech secretary Mr Kyle said that ministers are putting 'British expertise at the heart of the AI breakthroughs which will improve our lives'. He added: 'We are clear-eyed though on the need to make sure we can power this golden era for British AI through responsible, sustainable energy sources. Today's talks will help us drive forward that mission, delivering AI infrastructure which will benefit communities up and down the country for generations to come without ever compromising on our clean energy superpower ambitions.' Earlier this month Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK must persuade a 'sceptical' public that AI can improve lives and transform the way politics and businesses work. In a speech in London, the Prime Minister acknowledged people's concern about the rapid rise of AI technology and the risk to their jobs but stressed the benefits it would have on the delivery of public services, automating bureaucracy and allowing staff such as social workers and nurses to be 'more human'.