> Paper finds a failure case for current LLMs and draws broad conclusions about the fundamental limits of LLM technology > Evaluates the largest LLMs and finds

> Paper finds a failure case for current LLMs and draws broad conclusions about the fundamental limits of LLM technology > Evaluates the largest LLMs and finds evidence that actually scale overcomes the problem: "Notable exceptions are Claude 3 Opus and GPT-4 that occasionally manage to provide correct responses backed up with correct reasoning as evident in structured step by step explanations those models deliver together with solution" > Drink! I'm not sure it's productive to be this sarcastic on HN, but it's really quite a common pattern. And there's something very frustrating about how authors of these papers will accuse others of hype and overstating results but also often vastly overstate the generality of their own results - to the point where this HN thread is full of people saying bluntly "this proves LLMs can't reason".