6 ms·

I suppose it's a question whether what we call "reasoning" is an emergent phenomenon from having enough connections in a graph, or whether it's some other speci

I suppose it's a question whether what we call "reasoning" is an emergent phenomenon from having enough connections in a graph, or whether it's some other special sauce which we simply don't have in our current models yet. E.g. humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet. Do we gain this ability purely from a denser/larger graph of knowledge, or from a completely different architecture? I think until we know the answer to this, we can't make predictions about how to build true AGI.

psychoslave 2y ago
> E.g. humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet. Rarely, actually. More generally humans use all kind of inferences where problem at hand is intertwined with all other attention points that is occupying the mental load of the person. Giving a topic full mental attention and finding a path through pure deduction about a circumscribed subject is a rarity, even if you consider only those situations that require any conscious attention at all to perform some action before moving on.
- tadala 2y ago
  Not within mathematics, where it is the entire sport, and which is the point of contention.
  - psychoslave 2y ago
    If there is one space where it shines, sure it’s mathematics. But even there, the most notable mathematicians highly rely on some intuitions far before they manage to prove anything, as well as while selecting/creating their conceptual tools to attempt to build the proof, and rarely go to the point of formalizing their points through Coq/Isabelle or even with meticulous paper craft à la Principia Mathematica from Russel and Whitehead.
    - calf 2y ago
      Except humans correctly believe that a Coq proof is theoretically correct whereas an LLM does not have this meta reasoning ability at all.
ekianjo 2y ago
> humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet nope. most humans fall in various traps such as pattern recognition, confirmation bias, and many others instead of relying on deductive analysis. Even scientists fail at being rigorous.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  Of course there are cases like this, nobody is perfect. But we are talking about mathematics here, not everyday subconscious decision making. I agree that 99% of daily life is trivial pattern recognition. That's not what distinguishes humans though is it? Because animals, down to single celled organisms do just fine without higher order mental capabilities. But we are talking about reasoning here - and specifically about structured one like math.
  - andoando 2y ago
    I disagree that daily life is "trivial pattern recognition". Just our visual object recognition is immensely powerful and far beyond and current AI. A simple task like walking to the fridge requires a ton of pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. Recognizing people's moods/predicting behaviors is also incredibly involved imo. Ive said this many times but perhaps we should focus on achieving dog level intelligence first before we start worrying about human level AGI.
    - short_sells_poo 2y ago
      Oh I'm very much with you. In fact I get irked by people here breathlessly parroting that human level AGI is upon us any day now. I'd be impressed if an AI had mouse level capabilities any time soon. I think the current models are very impressive, but they are parlor tricks compared to what a true AGI should be capable of.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        >if an AI had mouse level capabilities any time soon That's why nobody has gotten any traction selling access to AIs for $20 a month whereas selling access to mouse labor is such a thriving business.
sshine 2y ago
> an emergent phenomenon from having enough connections in a graph, or ... some other special sauce For humans, it is emergent. But when we reason about reason, we invent special sauce. If we build our theories of reason into our models, they achieve the strengths and limitations of our models. If we don't, we're limited by the pace of evolution, because we don't have enough connections in our graph. So I think we'll have something immediately more useful if we embed ALU special instructions into a neural network.
anon291 2y ago
I must be in the minority here, but I don't think most people exercise any reason. I'd even venture that the vast majority of people haven't reasoned recently at all. In my mind, reasoning is an ability... a willful act to engage in thinking through an abstract problem. Most people don't do this and just use rationalization and learned behavior, which our brains are good at.
- short_sells_poo 2y ago
  Well, 99% of day to day life is mundane for much of living beings on earth. A bee is able to get through it's entire life without showing signs that it deeply ponders about anything. However, humans have the ability to reason about things (whether most people use this ability is a different question). So then we must ask the question: is this ability just a more advanced form of probabilistic pattern matching, or is it a different architecture altogether? Will current AI models be able to develop this ability, or will we need new models?
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  I think for the most part that's true, but obviously there are things people want to use LLMs for that do require planning/reasoning, and it makes for unexpected failure modes if LLMs don't have this ability.
- ckemere 2y ago
  People do inference all the time. “Is that driver about to turn?” “Where is the water next to the faucet coming from?” “Does this person like me?”
fishe 2y ago
All of our deductive reasoning is founded in induction. For example, the basis of all arithmetic is physics analogies regarding things that exist and the understanding that a thing implies another thing is not based in deduction. Similarly, I suspect from my own experience that general reasoning requires a basic understanding of physics if its origin isn't something ineffable. The ability to connect and find implications cannot itself be purely deductive and it would seem to me that an understanding of physical reality would have to be the origin for that ability.

psychoslave 2y ago

> E.g. humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet. Rarely, actually. More generally humans use all kind of inferences where problem at hand is intertwined with all other attention points that is occupying the mental load of the person. Giving a topic full mental attention and finding a path through pure deduction about a circumscribed subject is a rarity, even if you consider only those situations that require any conscious attention at all to perform some action before moving on.

tadala 2y ago
Not within mathematics, where it is the entire sport, and which is the point of contention.
- psychoslave 2y ago
  If there is one space where it shines, sure it’s mathematics. But even there, the most notable mathematicians highly rely on some intuitions far before they manage to prove anything, as well as while selecting/creating their conceptual tools to attempt to build the proof, and rarely go to the point of formalizing their points through Coq/Isabelle or even with meticulous paper craft à la Principia Mathematica from Russel and Whitehead.
  - calf 2y ago
    Except humans correctly believe that a Coq proof is theoretically correct whereas an LLM does not have this meta reasoning ability at all.

ekianjo 2y ago

> humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet nope. most humans fall in various traps such as pattern recognition, confirmation bias, and many others instead of relying on deductive analysis. Even scientists fail at being rigorous.

short_sells_poo 2y ago
Of course there are cases like this, nobody is perfect. But we are talking about mathematics here, not everyday subconscious decision making. I agree that 99% of daily life is trivial pattern recognition. That's not what distinguishes humans though is it? Because animals, down to single celled organisms do just fine without higher order mental capabilities. But we are talking about reasoning here - and specifically about structured one like math.
- andoando 2y ago
  I disagree that daily life is "trivial pattern recognition". Just our visual object recognition is immensely powerful and far beyond and current AI. A simple task like walking to the fridge requires a ton of pattern recognition and spatial reasoning. Recognizing people's moods/predicting behaviors is also incredibly involved imo. Ive said this many times but perhaps we should focus on achieving dog level intelligence first before we start worrying about human level AGI.
  - short_sells_poo 2y ago
    Oh I'm very much with you. In fact I get irked by people here breathlessly parroting that human level AGI is upon us any day now. I'd be impressed if an AI had mouse level capabilities any time soon. I think the current models are very impressive, but they are parlor tricks compared to what a true AGI should be capable of.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      >if an AI had mouse level capabilities any time soon That's why nobody has gotten any traction selling access to AIs for $20 a month whereas selling access to mouse labor is such a thriving business.

sshine 2y ago

> an emergent phenomenon from having enough connections in a graph, or ... some other special sauce For humans, it is emergent. But when we reason about reason, we invent special sauce. If we build our theories of reason into our models, they achieve the strengths and limitations of our models. If we don't, we're limited by the pace of evolution, because we don't have enough connections in our graph. So I think we'll have something immediately more useful if we embed ALU special instructions into a neural network.

anon291 2y ago

I must be in the minority here, but I don't think most people exercise any reason. I'd even venture that the vast majority of people haven't reasoned recently at all. In my mind, reasoning is an ability... a willful act to engage in thinking through an abstract problem. Most people don't do this and just use rationalization and learned behavior, which our brains are good at.

short_sells_poo 2y ago
Well, 99% of day to day life is mundane for much of living beings on earth. A bee is able to get through it's entire life without showing signs that it deeply ponders about anything. However, humans have the ability to reason about things (whether most people use this ability is a different question). So then we must ask the question: is this ability just a more advanced form of probabilistic pattern matching, or is it a different architecture altogether? Will current AI models be able to develop this ability, or will we need new models?
HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
I think for the most part that's true, but obviously there are things people want to use LLMs for that do require planning/reasoning, and it makes for unexpected failure modes if LLMs don't have this ability.
ckemere 2y ago
People do inference all the time. “Is that driver about to turn?” “Where is the water next to the faucet coming from?” “Does this person like me?”

fishe 2y ago

All of our deductive reasoning is founded in induction. For example, the basis of all arithmetic is physics analogies regarding things that exist and the understanding that a thing implies another thing is not based in deduction. Similarly, I suspect from my own experience that general reasoning requires a basic understanding of physics if its origin isn't something ineffable. The ability to connect and find implications cannot itself be purely deductive and it would seem to me that an understanding of physical reality would have to be the origin for that ability.