> Disclaimer: I’m no expert. OK cool, me neither. > An anecdotal example: I asked the reasoning LLM a question, and it laid out the correct answer in its thin

> Disclaimer: I’m no expert. OK cool, me neither. > An anecdotal example: I asked the reasoning LLM a question, and it laid out the correct answer in its thinking step, only to stop thinking and confidently give the wrong answer. I work with Claude Code in reasoning mode every day. I’ve seen it do foolish things, but never that. I totally believe that happened to you though. My first question would be which model/version were you using, I wonder if models with certain architectures or training regimens are more prone to this type of thing. > That moment led me to conclude that when LLM evangelists talk about reasoning and thinking, they are essentially bullshitting. Oh, come on. People need to stop getting so hung up on the words “thinking” and “reasoning”. Call it “verbose mode” or whatever if it makes you feel better. The point is that these modes (whatever you want to call them) have generally (not always, but generally) resulted in better performance and have interesting characteristics.