Man, remember when everyone was like 'AGI just around the corner!' Funny how well the Gartner hype cycle captures these sorts of things
We will be treating LLMs “like a junior developer” forever.
And I'm fine with that.
The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
31–40 of 276 posts
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#32Man, remember when everyone was like 'AGI just around the corner!' Funny how well the Gartner hype cycle captures these sorts of things
They're similar to self-driving vehicles. Both are around the corner, but neither can negotiate the turn.
All that to keep the investment pyramid schemes going.
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#33Man, remember when everyone was like 'AGI just around the corner!' Funny how well the Gartner hype cycle captures these sorts of things
I think we just around at 80% of progress
the easy part is done but the hard part is so hard it takes years to progress
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#34I have a somewhat similar point of view to the one voiced by other people, but I like to think about it slightly differently, so I'll chime in - here's my take (although, admittedly, I'm operating with a quite small reasoning budget (5 minutes tops)):
Time and again, for centuries - with the pace picking up dramatically in recent decades - we thought we were special and we were wrong. Sun does not rotate around the earth, which is a pretty typical planet, with the same chemical composition of any other planet. All of a sudden we're not the only ones who could calculate, then solve symbolic equations, then play chess, then compose music, then talk, then reason (up to a point, for some definition of "reason"). You get my point.
And when we were not only matched, but dramatically surpassed in these tasks (and not a day earlier), we concluded that they weren't _really_ what made us special.
At this point, it seems to me reasonable to assume we're _not_ special, and the onus should be on anybody claiming that we are to at least attempt to mention in passing what is the secret sauce that we have (even if we can't quite say what it is without handwaving or using concepts that by definition can not be defined - "qualia is the indescribable feeling of red - its redness (?)).
Oh, and sorry, I could never quite grasp what "sentient" is supposed to mean - would we be able to tell we're not sentient if we weren't?
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#35> Rather than standard benchmarks (e.g., math problems), we adopt controllable puzzle environments that let us vary complexity systematically
Very clever, I must say. Kudos to folks who made this particular choice.
> we identify three performance regimes: (1) low complexity tasks where standard models surprisingly outperform LRMs, (2) medium-complexity tasks where additional thinking in LRMs demonstrates advantage, and (3) high-complexity tasks where both models experience complete collapse.
This is fascinating! We need more "mapping" of regimes like this!
What I would love to see (not sure if someone on here has seen anything to this effect) is how these complexity regimes might map to economic value of the task.
For that, the eval needs to go beyond puzzles but the complexity of the tasks still need to be controllable.
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#36Fusion has been 25 years away for all of my life.
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#37I have a somewhat similar point of view to the one voiced by other people, but I like to think about it slightly differently, so I'll chime in - here's my take (although, admittedly, I'm operating with a quite small reasoning budget (5 minutes tops)): Time and again, for centuries - with the pace picking up dramatically in recent decades - we thought we were special and we were wrong. Sun does not rotate around the e…
I can give you a pretty wild explanation. Einstein was a freak of nature. Nature just gave him that "something" to figure out the laws of the universe. I'm avoiding the term God as to not tickle anyone incorrectly. Seriously, explain what schooling and environment gets you that guy. So, to varying degrees, all output is from the universe. It's hard for the ego to accept, surely we earned everything we ever produced ...
Spooky stuff.
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#38Man, remember when everyone was like 'AGI just around the corner!' Funny how well the Gartner hype cycle captures these sorts of things
What do you think has changed? The situation is still about as promising for AGI in a few years - if not more so. Papers like this are the academics mapping out where the engineering efforts need to be directed to get there and it seems to be a relatively small number of challenges that are easier as the ones already overcome - we know machine learning can solve Towers of Hanoi, for example. It isn't fundamentally complicated like Baduk is. The next wall to overcome is more of a low fence.
Besides, AI already passes the Turing test (or at least, is most likely to fail because it is too articulate and reasonable). There is a pretty good argument we've already achieved AGI and now we're working on achieving human- and superhuman-level intelligence in AGI.
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#39Their finding of LLMs working best at simple tasks, LRMs working best at medium complexity tasks, and then neither succeeding at actually complex tasks is good to know.
Not sure whether I sense sarcasm.
Re: The Illusion of Thinking: Strengths and limitations of reasoning models [pdf]
#40Man, remember when everyone was like 'AGI just around the corner!' Funny how well the Gartner hype cycle captures these sorts of things
To be fair, the technology sigmoid curve rises fastest just before its inflection point, so it is hard to predict at what point innovation slows down due to its very nature.
The first Boeing 747 was rolled out in 1968, only 65 years after the first successful heavier-than-air flight. If you told people back then that not much will fundamentally change in civil aviation over the next 57 years, no one would have believed you.