Llms
-
Your Brain vs. a Large Language Model
We don’t fully understand the human brain. That’s just how things are. But we know enough about its structure to make some genuinely interesting comparisons to how large language models work. So let’s walk through the major components of your brain and see where the parallels land.
The Neocortex and the Transformer
The neocortex is the outer layer of your brain, responsible for the higher-order stuff: sensory perception, spatial reasoning, language. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) sits within it as the orchestrator. It handles executive function, decision-making, and complex thought.
The LLM equivalent here is the transformer architecture itself. And the PFC’s role maps surprisingly well to the attention mechanism. The attention mechanism decides what information matters most given the current context, which is essentially what your prefrontal cortex does all day.
If you’ve worked with agentic AI systems, you’ve probably seen this pattern play out directly. You typically have an orchestration agent managing specialized sub-agents, each built for a specific task. That management layer is doing PFC work, deciding which agent to activate, what context to pass along, and how to synthesize the results.
The Hippocampus and Memory
The hippocampus is your storage unit. It’s critical for forming new memories and converting short-term experiences into long-term ones. Think of it as a buffer between what just happened and what you’ll remember later.
The LLM equivalent splits into two pieces. The model weights are your long-term memory, everything learned during training. The context window is your working memory, what the model can hold in its head right now for the current conversation.
LLMs don’t natively have long-term memory. The weights are baked in during training and that’s it. But memory systems get bolted on as part of the harness, and this is where retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) comes in. RAG lets the model pull in external data to contextualize its responses, which is functionally the same thing your hippocampus does when it retrieves a stored memory to help you make sense of something new.
Synapses and Parameters
Synapses are the gaps between neurons where signals pass, chemical or electrical. The strength of those connections determines how information flows through your brain. Stronger connections mean faster, more reliable signal paths.
This maps directly to model weights and parameters. Stronger connections between data points in the model mean those patterns carry more influence over the output. When we say a model has 170 billion parameters, we’re effectively describing the synaptic density of a digital brain. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it gives you an intuitive sense of scale.
Dopamine and RLHF
Your brain’s dopamine system is its reward circuit. It fires when an outcome is better than expected, reinforcing beneficial behaviors over harmful ones. It’s how you learn that some choices are worth repeating.
The LLM equivalent is reinforcement learning from human feedback, or RLHF. During training, humans rank the model’s responses. Good answers get a mathematical reward signal that makes similar outputs more likely in the future. Bad answers get penalized. This is the alignment problem in a nutshell: teaching the model what we find valuable and useful, the same way dopamine teaches your brain what’s worth pursuing.
This is also where the analogy breaks down the most. Dopamine is intrinsic. It’s wired into your survival. You don’t choose to feel rewarded when you eat, your brain just does that. RLHF is a proxy. The model isn’t learning what’s actually helpful, it’s learning what a secondary reward model scores as helpful. The result is a system that optimizes to appear useful rather than be useful. That’s why models can be confidently wrong or agree with you when you’re clearly mistaken. The reward signal says “the human liked that,” not “that was true.”
The Basal Ganglia and Routing
The basal ganglia is your gating mechanism. It’s a group of structures involved in motor control, habit formation, and deciding which thoughts or movements should surface and which should be suppressed. It’s basically your brain’s security and routing layer.
The LLM equivalent is the routing logic in mixture-of-experts (MoE) models. Every major provider uses some degree of MoE at this point. Different parts of the network activate depending on the task at hand, which is exactly what the basal ganglia does. System prompts play a similar role too, shaping how the model decides to respond given a particular input or situation.
So What?
None of these comparisons are perfect. The brain is biological, messy, and shaped by millions of years of evolution. LLMs are mathematical, deterministic (mostly), and shaped by a few years of engineering. But the structural parallels are hard to ignore. Attention mechanisms, memory systems, reward signals, gating logic. We keep arriving at similar architectural patterns, just built differently.
I don’t think that’s a coincidence, it tells us something about what intelligence requires, regardless of whether it’s running on neurons or GPUs.
I’d appreciate a follow. You can subscribe with your email below. The emails go out once a week, or you can find me on Mastodon at @[email protected].
/ AI / Llms / Neuroscience
-
What Is an AI Agent, Actually?
We need some actual definitions. The word “agent” is getting slapped onto every product and service, and marketers aren’t doing anybody favors as they SEO-optimize for the new agentic world we live in. There’s a huge range in what these things can actually do. Here is my attempt at clarity.
The Spectrum of AI Capabilities
Chatbot / Assistant — This is a single conversation with no persistent goals and no tool use. You ask it questions, it answers from a knowledge base. Think of the little chat widget on a product page that helps you find pricing info or troubleshoot a common issue. It talks with you, and that’s about it.
LLM with Tool Use — This is what you get when you open “agent mode” in your IDE. Your LLM can read files, run commands, edit code. A lot of IDE vendors call this an agent, but it’s not really one. It’s a language model that can use tools when you ask it to. The key difference: you are still driving. You give it a task, it does that task, you give it the next one.
Agent — Given a goal, it can plan and execute multi-step workflows autonomously. By “workflow” I mean a sequence of actions that depend on each other: read a file, decide what to change, make the edit, run the tests, fix what broke, repeat. It has reasoning, memory, and some degree of autonomy in completing an objective. You don’t hand it step-by-step instructions. You describe what you want done, and it figures out how to get there.
Sub-Agent — An agent that gets dispatched by another agent to handle a specific piece of a larger task. If you’ve used Claude Code or Cursor, you know what I’m talking about. The main agent kicks off a sub-agent to go research something, review code, or run tests in parallel while it keeps working on the bigger picture. The sub-agent has its own context and tools, but it reports back to the parent. It’s not a separate autonomous agent with its own goals. It’s more like delegating a subtask.
Multi-Agent System — Multiple independent agents coordinating together, either directly or through an orchestrator. The key difference from sub-agents: these agents have their own goals and specialties. They negotiate, hand off work, and make decisions independently. Think of a system where one agent monitors your infrastructure, another handles incident response, and a third writes the postmortem. Each Agent is operating autonomously but aware of the others.
So How Is Something Like OpenClaw Different From a Chatbot?
A chatbot is designed to talk with you, similar to how you’d just talk with an LLM directly. OpenClaw is designed to work for you. It has agency. It can take actions. It’s more than just a conversation.
Obviously, how much it can do depends on what skills and plugins you enable, and what degree of risk you’re comfortable with. But here’s the interesting part: it’s proactive. It has a heartbeat mechanism that keeps it running continuously in the background. It’ll automatically check on things or take action on a schedule you specify, without you having to prompt it.
A Few Misconceptions Worth Clearing Up
OpenClaw is just one specific framework for building and orchestrating agents, but the misconceptions around it apply broadly.
“Agents have to run locally." That’s how OpenClaw works, sure. But in reality, the enterprise agents are running invisibly in the background all the time. Your agent doesn’t need to live on your laptop.
“Agents need a chat interface." Because you can talk to an agent, people assume you must have a chat interface for it to be an agent. But by definition, agents don’t require a conversation. They can just run in the background doing things. No chat window needed.
“Sub-agents are just function calls." This one trips up developers. When your agent spawns a sub-agent, it’s not the same as calling a function. The sub-agent gets its own context window, its own reasoning loop, its own tool access. It can make judgment calls the parent didn’t anticipate. That’s fundamentally different from passing arguments to a function and getting a return value.
Why Write This Down
I mainly wrote this for myself. I keep running into these terms and needing a mental model to put them in context, so as I’m thinking about building agentic systems and trying to decide what level of capability I actually need for a given problem. The process of writing it down makes those decisions somewhat easier.