It’s also unclear that LLMs have no “reasoning loop”, or that a “loop” abstraction is necessary for all reasoning, or that eyeballing wrong answers is a suffici

It’s also unclear that LLMs have no “reasoning loop”, or that a “loop” abstraction is necessary for all reasoning, or that eyeballing wrong answers is a sufficient metric to categorically dismiss “reasoning." A "reasoning loop" argument is especially odd when applied to LLMs...which explicitly have architectural loops, and their output generation is a literal loop. Folks, we don't understand our own minds. You think we already understand a potential alien mind? With our n = 1 examples of generally intelligent mind architectures (ours)? Fat chance. Anyone confidently claiming sweeping, nebulous conclusions about these new models is likely revealing more about their biases than the model's inner workings. We just don't know much. Hot takes on ML are just anthropocentrism Rorschach tests.