3 ms·
Reasoning? LLMs can not reason, why is it always assumed they reason? They mimic reasoning.
by zwnow 1y ago
Reasoning? LLMs can not reason, why is it always assumed they reason? They mimic reasoning.
- elcomet 1y agoHow can you know?
- measurablefunc 1y agoBy thinking about what a computer is actually doing & realizing that attributing thought to an arthmetic gadget leads to all sorts of nonsensical consequences like an arrangement of dominoes & their cascade being a thought. The metaphysics of thinking computers is incoherent & if you study computability theory you'll reach the same conclusion.
- elcomet 1y agoI'd say that thoughts and reasoning are two different things, you're moving the goalpost. But what makes the computer hardware fundamentally incompatible with thinking? Compared to a brain
- measurablefunc 1y agoI've already explained it in several places. The burden of proof is on those drawing the equivalence to provide actual evidence for why they believe carbon & silicon are interchangeable & why substrate independence is a valid assumption. I have studied this problem for much longer than many people commenting on this issue & I am telling you that your position is metaphysically incoherent.
- moffkalast 1y agoIt's so funny to me that people are still adamant about this like two years after it's become a completely moot point.
- zwnow 1y agoExperts are adamant about this. Just take a look at https://youtu.be/iRqpsCHqLUI https://youtu.be/iRqpsCHqLUI
- moffkalast 1y agoNo such thing as an expert consensus on anything about LLMs these days, just different forms of grift. My point is, the question if an LLM reasons the same way a human does is about as useful as "does a submarine swim" or "can a telephone talk". The results speak for themselves.
- zwnow 1y agoLLMs do not reason. Not hard to understand.
- moffkalast 1y agoIdk, before this people from your camp were saying LLMs can't even understand anything. Always moving the goalposts. Then it'll be they can't feel or can't something else just to be pointlessly contrarian. Anyway, wrong idea. There have been enough cases of models providing novel results that it's clear that whatever human trait they supposedly lack they don't really need. A car does not need legs, it does things differently. Having legs would even be a major detriment and would hold it back from achieving its top performance. That's what those brain simulating projects are conceptually btw: cars with legs or planes with flapping wings. That's why they all fail, the approach makes no sense.
- raspasov 1y agoWhat is "novel results"? A random UUID generator also gives "novel result", every time. Even if we're to humor the "novel" part, have they actually come up with anything truly novel? New physics? New proofs of hard math problems that didn't exist before?