The reasoning does not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. Humans are rarely 100% accurate at anything, and yet over time we can build up large models of pro

The reasoning does not need to be 100% accurate to be useful. Humans are rarely 100% accurate at anything, and yet over time we can build up large models of problems using verification and review. We can do the exact same thing with LLMs. The best example of this is Sean Heelan, who used o3 to find a real security vulnerability in the Linux kernel: https://sean.heelan.io/2025/05/22/how-i-used-o3-to-find-cve-2025-37899-a-remote-zeroday-vulnerability-in-the-linux-kernels-smb-implementation/ https://sean.heelan.io/2025/05/22/how-i-used-o3-to-find-cve-... Sean Heelan ran o3 100 times, and it found a known vulnerability in 8% of runs. For a security audit, that is immensely useful, since an expert can spend the time to look at the results from a dozen runs and quickly decide if there is anything real. Even more remarkably though, this same testing exposed a zero-day that they were not even looking for. That is pretty incredible for a system that makes mistakes. This is why LLM reasoning absolutely does not need to be perfect to be useful. Human reasoning is inherently flawed as well, and yet through systems like peer review and reproducing results, we can still make tremendous progress over time. It is just about figuring out systems of verification and review so that we don't need to trust any LLM output blindly. That said, greater reliability would be massively beneficial to how easy it is to get good results from LLMs. But it's not required.