6 ms·
[stub for offtopicness] [[All: please don't post shallow-generic reactions to baity titles. Those are basically the same thing, a la https://en.wikipedia.org/w
by dang 3mo ago
[stub for offtopicness]
[[All: please don't post shallow-generic reactions to baity titles. Those are basically the same thing, a la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase, and we're trying for something more substantive here.]]
- JackSlateur 3mo agoDo they ?
- throw310822 3mo agoOf course they do, how else do you think they manage to implement new features in large codebases, or to prove new theorems? But you don't even have to assume they do because of the results- you can read their chain of thought.
- 3848499449 3mo ago[flagged]
- ToValueFunfetti 3mo agoFor the love of all that is sacred, please stop doing this. I'm begging you. The whole social media landscape is dying and you are creating a throwaway to participate in ruining this small corner. I assume this is not your first. And no one is convinced by this! The guidelines are there for your benefit as well. You achieve nothing but hastening the destruction of one of the last half-decent communities. Sorry for the melodrama.
- 3848499449 3mo ago[flagged]
- ToValueFunfetti 3mo agoThe top two comments in this thread agree with the point you just made. This is true of essentially any thread on the subject. If this place sucks, it would have to be because of people like you. If not, you in particular may not be very good at noticing.
- chrisjj 3mo agoThe Eliza effect.
- throw310822 3mo agoIt's indeed so powerful that even my compiler and my unit tests fell victim of this delusion.
- azakai 3mo agoThe article answers this question, at least to the extent it can be answered, at this time. We see some signs of reasoning, but also we understand little about how they work.
- michaelchisari 3mo agoDo we see actual signs of reasoning or is it anthropomorphism? We have an innate tendency to do so as humans.
- blooalien 3mo ago> Do we see signs of reasoning or is it anthropomorphism? This is the part that so many folks just don't seem to understand (probably because it's been labeled as "thinking" or "reasoning" mode, and people assume that words have meaning). It's not reasoning or thought. It's spewing tokens pretending to "think", but it's actually just generating extra "context" to help the final answer be more coherent. The model isn't doing anything it doesn't already do. It's just doing more of it to improve the quality of the final answer displayed to the user.
- dataflow 3mo agoHonestly, people need to get over this debate. It's pretty irrelevant in a lot of cases. When people ask "what is the model thinking?", they're really asking "what caused the model to produce this response (as opposed to a bunch of other plausible ones)?" Whether it's thinking or word prediction or whatever you want to call it, people are trying to understand the causal chain.
- wat10000 3mo agoAngry diatribes about whether submarines swim or not.
- throw310822 3mo agoIt's not just a nominalistic debate though, as the people who are vocal against the idea that LLMs might "understand" or "think" also claim that because of this, they are fundamentally limited in what they can achieve, in contrast to human beings. Therefore any possibility of actual intelligence (or even superintelligence) is, according to them, just a fantasy.
- arcanemachiner 3mo agoYes, there is an LLM feature that we have anthropomorphized as "reasoning" or "thinking", where an LLM has a scratch space where it can dump tokens that help to improve the final output.
- otabdeveloper4 3mo ago> that help to improve the final output Do they actually help? Are you sure?
- analog31 3mo agoDo LLMs have Qualia?
- wat10000 3mo agoDo people?
- emp17344 3mo agoYes.
- wat10000 3mo agoHow do you know?
- ThrowawayTestr 3mo agoBecause I'd be sad if we didn't.
- emp17344 3mo agoBecause there’s no evidentiary reason to deny the existence of my own phenomenal experience. I appear to experience, and the simplest conclusion to draw from that appearance is that I truly do experience.
- wat10000 3mo agoI completely agree with that argument, but that only covers one person.
- chrisjj 3mo agoClickbait article title. The article body does not presume they reason.
- dang 3mo agoWe've edited the title now in the hope of nudging the discussion in a more substantive direction.
- otabdeveloper4 3mo agoThey don't reason.
- CamperBob2 3mo agoWhat would change your mind?
- CrzyLngPwd 3mo agoMy toaster doesn't reason, and neither do the current clankers.
- CamperBob2 3mo agoHow'd your toaster do at IMO last year?
- scrollaway 3mo agoI hear he got burned pretty badly.
- warumdarum 3mo agoThey dont. They have input that runs through a invisible stochastic canyon. As long as there is previous experience the stochastic canyon never ends. If there is none or isignificant one, or it runs out of tokkens, it hallucinates and the illusion falls apart. There is no reasoning, just the invisible grand canyon of all of human experience and knowledge. PS: try to get it to retell you a clichee movie or book and you can see life near the end, how the delta of all the same movies opens up into wildly different endings. To advance further it would need the ability to abstract away the general situation shape and pattern recognize similar situations.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- red75prime 3mo agoStochastic gradient descent can be likened to traveling down a billion-dimensional canyon. But inference? Hardly.
- alchemist1e9 3mo agoIt’s curious how they solve unsolved math problems without reasoning. Maybe I have a different definition of reasoning than you.
- emp17344 3mo agoGuess what? SAT solvers have also solved unsolved math problems. Do you believe they are “reasoning”?
- wizzwizz4 3mo agoThe question of whether a SAT solver can reason is about as interesting as the question of whether a submarine can swim. (EWD867, EWD898)
- Lerc 3mo agoI think you are missing the point of that statement It is a claim that swimming is a word that defines a context. It is an explicit statement that the question of whether a submarine can swim has nothing to do with the capability of the submarine. If you are asking which pigeon hole we are putting something into, the answer is "The one we put it into". This is what make the question uninteresting. If you are asking what is it about this pigeon hole that people value and does that align with the criteria that people use to decide categorisation. That very much is an interesting and complicated question.
- CodeCompost 3mo agoNo, talking to itself is not reasoning.