It's a good, understandable paper. The main issue with chain-of-thought (which I think is a solid approach, and one that needs to take place) is that we ourselv

It's a good, understandable paper. The main issue with chain-of-thought (which I think is a solid approach, and one that needs to take place) is that we ourselves aren't necessarily 'trained' on chain-of-thought. Yes, we do learn mathematical proofs and reasoning at some point (usually), but most people settle on latent thinking without training, and switch between the two modes naturally. My intuition says we're missing something, but who knows