so close.. ;) (It' silly, honest, always on my side: gives me any reasoning I wish reagardless if it does make sense (other maybe than Markov Chains I guess) -

so close.. ;) (It' silly, honest, always on my side: gives me any reasoning I wish reagardless if it does make sense (other maybe than Markov Chains I guess) - so, there _is_ some reasoning in it, it happens even convincing, but as well things which we can't explain - if it could be noise over signal or something we don't know, yet nor about, our wishfull thinking, expressed or overload.) There must be a reasoning for some reasonings (patterns in LLM confused as knowledge? ..maybe quiet voices talk to it ..its cultured ? ) If AI may not be reasoning well by self - from choosing the right principles as the base ('options') to building only on it (to do this right it would need to have its own opinions and know the difference beetwen light and darkness, taste ('style transfer')(..were there other options?) - but how ? ) - and to get 100% reasoning ALL not reasonable paths shall be replaced, at least explained.. ('human labeling .. ranking.. options..')'reinforcement'.. " .. it would be the nicest if the reasoning methods and paths could be just extendable and customisable (POVs or emulating differrent ways, coherent/emergent..) but some of them could be objectively choosen as canonical, in given circumstances, with consensus ('fine-tuning .. which one seems the best, so, ranking'), - _then_ we could let it grow ('generate .. output').. ( - otherwise it will become a disconnected from truth alternate hallucinated stretched reality which will eat itself in the best case ).