151–160 of 268 posts
LLMs do not reason. They also have a very different moral compass than humans. Maybe stop hurling trash articles at everyone
Their reasoning tokens are refining their eventual output
LLMs lack qualia, among other things. If I ask an LLM "what is an apple?" it tells me: > An apple is the edible fruit of the apple tree, scientifically known as Malus domestica. It is one of the world's most widely grown fruits and is eaten fresh or used in many foods and drinks. If I ask an LLM "what is a mundu fruit?" it tells me: > Mundu is a tropical fruit native to Southeast Asia, especially found in Indonesia,…
The philosophy of mind is massively open for interpretation and if you can certainly say we experience an apple differently than an LLM I'd love to read your paper on it. This stuff isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.
Back in the day it was a bit of a cliche to bring up “clever Hans”, the horse that could do math, when talking about machine learning. He couldn’t do math but he read some cues from his handler of pick the write answers, the handler iirc wasn’t in on it. The point of the story was that classifiers can be right for the wrong reasons and almost inevitably are. At least there’s zero guarantee that the reason for making…
Generalization in successful results is enough to close this argument for me.
LLMs lack qualia, among other things. If I ask an LLM "what is an apple?" it tells me: > An apple is the edible fruit of the apple tree, scientifically known as Malus domestica. It is one of the world's most widely grown fruits and is eaten fresh or used in many foods and drinks. If I ask an LLM "what is a mundu fruit?" it tells me: > Mundu is a tropical fruit native to Southeast Asia, especially found in Indonesia,…
It seems like you are talking about Kant's "thing-in-itself". We can't know any more about an apple than an LLM can. We experience it through our faulty senses. We do not experience the actual apple. This is still open and debatable and is philosophy 101 stuff. I really dislike the confidence on this site, philosophically, that things are just obviously so. The philosophy of mind is massively open for interpretation…
Some things are allowed to be obvious. It's a series of bits and bytes.
LLMs lack qualia, among other things. If I ask an LLM "what is an apple?" it tells me: > An apple is the edible fruit of the apple tree, scientifically known as Malus domestica. It is one of the world's most widely grown fruits and is eaten fresh or used in many foods and drinks. If I ask an LLM "what is a mundu fruit?" it tells me: > Mundu is a tropical fruit native to Southeast Asia, especially found in Indonesia,…
It seems like you are talking about Kant's "thing-in-itself". We can't know any more about an apple than an LLM can. We experience it through our faulty senses. We do not experience the actual apple. This is still open and debatable and is philosophy 101 stuff. I really dislike the confidence on this site, philosophically, that things are just obviously so. The philosophy of mind is massively open for interpretation…
This feels like a problem with anthropomorphizing. We’re using words like “reasoning” and “thinking” because they are comfortable, and then we’re getting wrapped around the axle because we’re not sure if those words are totally accurate. I assure you that they aren’t accurate (the model is not alive and it’s all just a lot of matrix math under the hood), but there are no good alternative words. If we wanted to be acc…
LLM's reason and think in the way that boats "swim" and planes "fly". It is an analogy. But nevertheless, planes do take you where you want to go, and so do LLMs. I think we are in sort of the place where before the invention of planes, the only things that "flew" were animals with wings that flapped. The flapping wings might seem to be a core part of the process of flight, and that if you lacked flapping wings, you…
The sort of place we're actually in is one where astronomical sums of money have been invested in this technology, creating an unprecedented incentive to hype and overstate its fundamental capabilities. They're large language models and their analyses are based on language statistics, not logic, comprehension and knowledge, all of which they are fundamentally incapable of, and all of which are fundamental to reasoning. They don't reason in the literal sense that planes fly.
I don't doubt that there could be a reasoning machine, but LLMs are not it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good take. People overwhelmingly fit a narrative to how they make decisions rather than make decisions according to a chain of reasoning.
That’s just conflating reasoning and “parallel reconstruction” - there is such thing as reasoning, and I agree it’s probably less common in decision making, but it’s fundamental to many tasks where we figure out a solution, like writing an algorithm, math proofs, etc.
I think the assumption that there is some sort of formal ‘reasoning’ process that is inherently superior to whatever ‘non-reason-based’ decision process ‘non-reasoning’ systems use is not immediately justifiable.
Most reasoning is ultimately based in heuristics: this is the right thing to do next because it has worked in the past. This is the right thing to do because our intuition tells us doing it will lead to this desirable outcome.
When you’re formulating a math proof, sure, the steps you are laying out make up a ‘reasoned’ argument but how you choose what steps to take is wholly intuitive. Why assume the contrapositive to begin this proof? It’s worked in the past and it might work here.
It’s all pattern matching trained on a reward function.
Back in the day it was a bit of a cliche to bring up “clever Hans”, the horse that could do math, when talking about machine learning. He couldn’t do math but he read some cues from his handler of pick the write answers, the handler iirc wasn’t in on it. The point of the story was that classifiers can be right for the wrong reasons and almost inevitably are. At least there’s zero guarantee that the reason for making…
Reasoning is a term that's like the term intelligence in that it's highly complex and much less well defined than we'd like it to be, especially as we're trying to compare algorithms to human behaviors. To begin to explore this we have to imagine a reasoning oracle, that when presented with a question that can be reasoned will immediately present a correct answer. Immediately from this definition we can see that huma…
> The last thing I'll touch on is why did human society begin to rapidly change after we started following the scientific method. Looking at the method in hindsight, it seems like a pattern that a reasoning agent should have been able to distil and follow around the time it reaches what we consider higher level reasoning.
Why human society changed at the time the scientific method was codified is a confluence of things and I don't think the scientific method should be given an outsized role. The scientific method goes hand in hand with peer review, publishing of methods, a common scientific language, an educated leisure class, and the development of tools for observation. The method itself is just a practical way to utilize these developments and is as much a result of the situation as any other technology. It did not get people to think differently about problems; we had navigated seas, moved armies, built wonders, produced math and calculated the circumference of the globe just fine without it.
Arguably it was the abandoning of the alchemist tradition of secrecy that was the revolution that enabled our modern world more than a specific codification of method.
I'll admit that I find this discussion a bit navel-gazy. It has become a question of semantics not a question of actual functionality. The question has become "what do we mean when we use the word 'reasoning'" which is uninteresting. Dijkstra said[1] "... the question whether computers can think. The question is just as relevant and just as meaningful as the question whether submarines can swim." I don't see a clear…
This is exactly the most interesting and important point. Because the word reason has been subject to so much philosophical debate throughout history, it is very laden with meanings and implications. It sets all kinds of expectations about normativity, objectivity, truth, and humans convincing other humans. To use the word reason for a stochastic generator is misleading.