Structured PREreview of Species of Mind: Developmental Architecture for Human and LLM Intelligence

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction explains the objective clearly, stating through what parameters LLM models responses are compared to human intelligence, to prove whether Artificial intelligence works similarly in cognitive functions as to human intelligence over different age groups of children. It gives an introductory outlook of how the human mind works and in what ways the cognitive abilities are compared with the LLM models, mentioning the defining parameters of cognitive development.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The methods are well executed, wherein each test performed signifying one aspect of cognitive development, explains the aspect and how both human mind and LLM models respond to the aspect through the test given. Using tables and figures helps to interpret the findings of each test easily. Covering all the domains necessary to answer the objective of the research, including having a self representation test of cognitive abilities, helps to know in which aspect of cognitive development each LLM model is lacking, and how the LLM model reacts on self awareness. Thus, helping in giving valid conclusion to the research.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

Conclusions do explain the results obtained after doing the tests, explaining the findings of each LLM model, but what better could be done in each LLM model isn't explained that much. It also does not reflect on what the future research could be stressed upon considering current done research findings.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The data presentations are well suited, using tables and figures now and then to explain the findings easily for reviewer was helpful. But, a better work can be done.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Somewhat clearly

The authors have explained the findings of this research clearly, stating how LLM models are better in mathematical tasks and casual reasoning than Human minds, but lack in visuo-spatial tasks. Also, explaining how LLM models and human mind work similarly in doing cognitive functions but have different origin pathways and understanding. But, the potential next steps for future research is not much explained in the conclusions.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Yes, the research is likely to advance in academic knowledge, explaining how Human mind and LLM models work in cognitive functions, who is better than the other in various tasks of casual reasoning, visuo-spatial learning, mathematical reasoning, etc, which I already illustrated before. Thus, helping in improving further LLM models in functioning and having the knowledge of LLM models in their functioning is crucial to be aware of any dangerous implications LLM models can have on Humans.

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

There may be minor issues, but the research is well written and understood.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

As, I stated before, the research has high value in academic knowledge advancement. But, to reflect upon future research advancements considering this research findings should have been mentioned in the Conclusions a little better.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Yes, as I stated before, minor changes are needed in the Conclusion to mention future research possibilities considering this research findings.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.