That seems a little reductionist. We're just exchanging ideas and trying to interpret imprecise terms in-context (ideally in good faith). We're not really disc

That seems a little reductionist. We're just exchanging ideas and trying to interpret imprecise terms in-context (ideally in good faith). We're not really discussing whether LLMs are "thinking" in the sense of the "social category" in the abstract sense - that's just the one word that this discussion got hung up on. Concretely, we're discussing whether giving LLMs a larger time-budget would yield better results - OP suggested that letting LLMs iteratively refine or enrich an answer might lead to better results. The term "thinking" was used as an analogy or quick crutch to convey an analogy, not 100% equivalence, between a hypothetic LLM output evaluation algo and people's supposed "fast" and "slow" modes of thinking (if they even exist, whatever). Even if people don't have these two modes of thought, as you said they might be post-fact reifications of sociological ideas, the algorithm/idea of iteratively reflecting on and self-refining LLM outputs might still apply to LLMs as LLMs are not actually thinking. Imo current LLM architecture and/or training data facilitate (mostly?) the automatic non-iterative mode but OpenAI is trying to do more of the iterative, reflective mode with O1 afaict. Imo and currently, there's not much to be gained by iteratively feeding an a current-generation LLM it's own output to iteratively analyze and augment it. At least not in general. Even enriching the input data via RAG doesn't always lead to better results. Imo, there's more fundamental work necessary - and maybe OpenAI is doing that.