I’m so tired of hearing this be repeated, like the whole “LLMs are _just_ parrots” thing. It’s patently obvious to me that LLMs can reason and solve novel prob

I’m so tired of hearing this be repeated, like the whole “LLMs are _just_ parrots” thing. It’s patently obvious to me that LLMs can reason and solve novel problems not in their training data. You can test this out in so many ways, and there’s so many examples out there. ______________ Edit for responders, instead of replying to each: We obviously have to define what we mean by "reasoning" and "solving novel problems". From my point of view, reasoning != general intelligence. I also consider reasoning to be a spectrum. Just because it cannot solve the hardest problem you can think of does not mean it cannot reason at all. Do note, I think LLMs are generally pretty bad at reasoning. But I disagree with the point that LLMs cannot reason at all or never solve any novel problems. In terms of some backing points/examples: 1) Next token prediction can itself be argued to be a task that requires reasoning 2) You can construct a variety of language translation tasks, with completely made up languages, that LLMs can complete successfully. There's tons of research about in-context learning and zero-shot performance. 3) Tons of people have created all kinds of challenges/games/puzzles to prove that LLMs can't reason. One by one, they invariably get solved (eg. https://gist.github.com/VictorTaelin/8ec1d8a0a3c87af31c25224a1f7e31ec https://gist.github.com/VictorTaelin/8ec1d8a0a3c87af31c25224..., https://ahmorse.medium.com/llms-and-reasoning-part-i-the-monty-hall-problem-f30b22c7ade7 https://ahmorse.medium.com/llms-and-reasoning-part-i-the-mon...) -- sometimes even when the cutoff date for the LLM is before the puzzle was published. 4) Lots of examples of research about out-of-context reasoning (eg. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14546 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14546) In terms of specific rebuttals to the post: 1) Even though they start to fail at some complexity threshold, it's incredibly impressive that LLMs can solve any of these difficult puzzles at all! GPT3.5 couldn't do that. We're making incremental progress in terms of reasoning. Bigger, smarter models get better at zero-shot tasks, and I think that correlates with reasoning. 2) Regarding point 4 ("Bigger models might to do better"): I think this is very dismissive. The paper itself shows a huge variance in the performance of different models. For example, in figure 8, we see Claude 3.7 significantly outperforming DeepSeek and maintaining stable solutions for a much longer sequence length. Figure 5 also shows that better models and more tokens improve performance at "medium" difficulty problems. Just because it cannot solve the "hard" problems does not mean it cannot reason at all, nor does it necessarily mean it will never get there. Many people were saying we'd never be able to solve problems like the medium ones a few years ago, but now the goal posts have just shifted.