4 ms·

> Nope, there's no reasoning. It's just generating the text that best matches its training data. There's no contradiction. You have to reason to predict the te

• jerf 3y ago
  Probably the best answer is, "The concept in your head labelled by 'reasoning' doesn't apply, but neither does the one you associate with 'unreasoning'." It isn't doing classical reasoning per se, but neither does it match an unreasoning brute process. In general, you should get used to this. Probably every AI from this point on out until they simply exceed us entirely and we can't mentally model them at all are going to be neither quite what we consider "human reasoning", but that doesn't mean they are "unreasoning" either. We'll be able to see certain flaws, but then again they will increasingly be able to see our flaws too.
  • ajuc 3y ago
    > It isn't doing classical reasoning per se, but neither does it match an unreasoning brute process. What we call "classical reasoning" is also running on neural network trained by predicting data. I think the distinction is only there because we mix levels of abstraction - when talking about AI we focus on the lowest levels, when talking about people we focus on the higher levels. Try asking LLM to explain its reasoning and after dismissing the "I'm just AI" disclaimers it will usually generate logical chain that could just as well be generated by a human. Even if you think it's not "really" reasoning - just pretending - pretending means it's running a virtual machine and that virtual machine is reasoning. Same difference.