Arguably, LLMs already have this. They can do impressive reasoning already. The problem may be that the way they encode all that is untenable. Imagine trying to

Arguably, LLMs already have this. They can do impressive reasoning already. The problem may be that the way they encode all that is untenable. Imagine trying to describe a car in terms of its individual pieces (tires, suspension, engine). Then imagine trying to do that in terms of its molecules. Uh oh. Then its atoms. Even worse. I will freely admit, I'm torn on how to think about this. On the one hand, some of the kinds of mistakes LLM's make lead me to think that they aren't exactly "doing reasoning" as I think of it. But the things they can do hint at some sort of reasoning. Part of me wants to think of it as "they can simulate reasoning", but there's a fair objection to be raised that "simulating reasoning is just as good as doing reasoning." Part of me wants to reject that, but then I remind myself that I've always claimed to be something like a "behaviorist" when it comes to evaluating AI's. That is, I've always tried to eschew those "it's not real thinking" arguments and focus on the observed behavior, holding to a "if it displays intelligent behavior then it is intelligent" mindset. LLM's have me sort of vacillating on all of this.