"For decades, logic and CS researchers have known what reasoning is." ... this is a fairly significant overstatement. There is not complete agreement on this te

"For decades, logic and CS researchers have known what reasoning is." ... this is a fairly significant overstatement. There is not complete agreement on this term and our understanding continues to evolve. The models don't have to think like humans to think. Saying that LLM's only offer an 'approximation' of reasoning is also an overstatement as it is not a resolved topic. But to the original point, its not exactly just semantics if thought traces are not doing the job that they were originally thought to do. There is value in knowing how these things actually work. If chain of thought is just grounding the latent space and not directly contributing to the process of generating a response it has implications on how we test and verify the reliability of models if nothing else... doesn't mean they aren't useful but it definitely impacts many of the tools we could have to evaluate their performance.