> If it is a reasoning engine, why didn't it answer "I don't know" in the first case? Because it wasn't purposefully built to be a reasoning engine from the ou

> If it is a reasoning engine, why didn't it answer "I don't know" in the first case? Because it wasn't purposefully built to be a reasoning engine from the outset. So some of us are working out the kinks and minimizing the degree of hallucination. GPT-4 hallucinates less than its predecessor. Others are writing reasoning loops like ReAct that get us closer to it by refining the model to act more like a reasoning engine. The fact that it can reason without being told to do much other than autocomplete text is the emergent property that people are in awe of. Maybe language and reasoning are so inexorably linked that you can't have one without the other. We are, after all, the animals on this planet with the most complex form of language. Other relatively "smart" animals like whales also have some rudimentary form of language. And if you extrapolate the rate of progress in this emergent reasoning from "GPT-1" to "GPT-4", AGI feels within reach