4 ms·

There is evidence that many animals have reasoning abilities. Few can talk.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
There's also counter evidence that animals lack reasoning abilities. Ever see a gorilla attack it's own reflection or a dog chase it's own tail? Contradictory evidence displaying the ability to reason and the lack of the ability to reason is what is displayed by animals. Figures that the LLM displays the same contradictory evidence. But none of this evidence proves anything definitively. Much like human cognition, The LLM is a machine that we built but don't understand. No definitive statement can be made about it.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  You just argued that, because some animals display errors in reasoning, we can call into doubt the claim that any animal reasons. This does not follow. The reflection test, for example, is passed by some animals; we can test it by putting a red dot on their face and seeing if they mess with it. Either way, it’s not even a test of general reasoning abilities. I think you’re giving animals far too little credit.
  - sibeliuss 2y ago
    Not to mention all of the developments in mirror testing to account for differences in perception. What they're finding is that self-recognition is more common than assumed.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    >You just argued that, because some animals display errors in reasoning, we can call into doubt the claim that any animal reasons. No, I literally said no claim can be made. And I didn't just say some animals display errors therefore we can doubt any claim that animals reason. I said we observe contradictory evidence. And my conclusion again was that we don't enough evidence to make ANY claim.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      I believe the claim that some animals can reason is a very reasonable hypothesis, while the claim that no animals can reason is an unlikely one. The contradictory evidence you cite is pointing at some animals doing dumb things. Those animals can be as dumb as rocks and it wouldn’t matter for my claim, I’d only need to show you one reasoning animal to prove it.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        Doesn’t prove anything for any animal you show me that can reason I can show you an example of where it can’t. However I agree with your hypothesis. And I agree that my counter examples are not convincing. The inner point is this. The same exact thing above can be said for an LLM. You can show evidence for both reasoning and failure to reason. The illogic here is that contradictory evidence for animals indicates that animals can reason. But the same evidence for LLMs prove they can’t reason.

There's also counter evidence that animals lack reasoning abilities. Ever see a gorilla attack it's own reflection or a dog chase it's own tail? Contradictory evidence displaying the ability to reason and the lack of the ability to reason is what is displayed by animals. Figures that the LLM displays the same contradictory evidence. But none of this evidence proves anything definitively. Much like human cognition, The LLM is a machine that we built but don't understand. No definitive statement can be made about it.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
You just argued that, because some animals display errors in reasoning, we can call into doubt the claim that any animal reasons. This does not follow. The reflection test, for example, is passed by some animals; we can test it by putting a red dot on their face and seeing if they mess with it. Either way, it’s not even a test of general reasoning abilities. I think you’re giving animals far too little credit.
- sibeliuss 2y ago
  Not to mention all of the developments in mirror testing to account for differences in perception. What they're finding is that self-recognition is more common than assumed.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  >You just argued that, because some animals display errors in reasoning, we can call into doubt the claim that any animal reasons. No, I literally said no claim can be made. And I didn't just say some animals display errors therefore we can doubt any claim that animals reason. I said we observe contradictory evidence. And my conclusion again was that we don't enough evidence to make ANY claim.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I believe the claim that some animals can reason is a very reasonable hypothesis, while the claim that no animals can reason is an unlikely one. The contradictory evidence you cite is pointing at some animals doing dumb things. Those animals can be as dumb as rocks and it wouldn’t matter for my claim, I’d only need to show you one reasoning animal to prove it.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Doesn’t prove anything for any animal you show me that can reason I can show you an example of where it can’t. However I agree with your hypothesis. And I agree that my counter examples are not convincing. The inner point is this. The same exact thing above can be said for an LLM. You can show evidence for both reasoning and failure to reason. The illogic here is that contradictory evidence for animals indicates that animals can reason. But the same evidence for LLMs prove they can’t reason.