Post

Hi, just because a software tells you it’s “reasoning” or “thinking” doesn’t mean it actually is. You won’t believe this but programmers can make software lie about what it does. Maybe programmers need more guardrails.

I never understand these arguments. How does this prove it's not reasoning? I can tell from using LLMs, if they can reason, they can't do it very well. But I never get how explaining the algorithm proves it can't think.

Because no part of the algorithm even attempts to mimic understanding or comprehension; which is a necessary part of actual thinking and reasoning.

0 reposts29 likes

Fundamental it boils down to what's "reasoning"? At its core, LLM has a long, long list of "if A, then B", "if B, then C", and so on. The difference from traditional programming is that instead of explicitly mapping B to each other, the "B" can be fuzzy matched.

Without the ability to process subtle data humans process constantly AI can’t work like an organic brain. From when we’re born we use senses to gather data. Without the ability to know what chicken tastes like, they’ll never perceive things as we do. They can’t experience the discomfort of hunger.

Note that how tokens emerge from the internal vector space gets into a weird place where unless you need hard science We are very quickly hitting a hard research wall where scaling won't get folks where they want. But capitalist have this brain poisoning that infinite money makes things happen.

I totally agree here. And I wonder if the disagreement on this thread is more semantics. Can LLMs reason? I'd say yes but they're not very good at it. And more importantly, like you mentioned, scaling will not fix the problem...