3 ms·

Yeah but at that point it's probably close enough. Humans can get their own reasoning wrong too so some inaccuracy is acceptable.

• inigyou 2mo ago
  It's exactly as close as asking for it after the fact. Reasoning traces have no relation to the reasons LLMs actually do things, except that they may do things because the reasoning trace says they should.
  • Dylan16807 2mo ago
    It's exactly as close except when it isn't?
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      Yes, and when it isn't is a very specific very limited case that has no relation to the one being discussed. The fact that some course of action was previously mentioned in a reasoning trace, or any other context, makes it more likely to be performed. It has nothing to do with the reason that it was mentioned in the reasoning trace.
      • Dylan16807 2mo ago
        I don't think it's that limited of a case. And it's not "no relation", it was brought up as an attempt to fix/subset the original claim.
        • inigyou 2mo ago
          No, it's just warding off pedantry. There is one way that reasoning traces might "be the reason" something happens, but that's different from the reasoning trace saying why something happens, which was the question.