41–50 of 296 posts
Pretty wild dressing a blog post up as a scientific paper.
But just so I don't waste your time with human thought, I asked Claude if it would call this a scientific paper, and it said yes.
Strong dislike for papers that tell me what to do in the title, especially when even the paper admits a loose correlation of the intermediate tokens compared to solution correctness. My solutions work and they speak for themselves.
Is anthropomorphizing a real problem? From what I know, none of the serious LLM researchers believe it has anything to do with human reasoning, apart from Anthropic with their click-baity terminology like "LLM biology". It's just a metaphor. "Reasoning tokens" is simpler to say than "learned prompt augmentation tokens". I used to (and still do) anthropomorphize things long before LLMs, and I've seen my colleagues do…
Yes. There's a difference between scrapping a session and starting over, or going back and branching something, or using sub-agents to see five outcomes, vs arguing with a system in a long drawn out chat.
Like - I know that if a model starts doing something silly, instead of correcting it - I can probably go back and edit two steps prior to add an extra guardrail, or extra data, or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume theyre searching the local gradient to see if theres a better descent before proceeding.
I don't think there's anything like that going on. They just word vomit into a secondary area, and then there is an internal prompt that says "clean this up and summarize for the user".
Is anthropomorphizing a real problem? From what I know, none of the serious LLM researchers believe it has anything to do with human reasoning, apart from Anthropic with their click-baity terminology like "LLM biology". It's just a metaphor. "Reasoning tokens" is simpler to say than "learned prompt augmentation tokens". I used to (and still do) anthropomorphize things long before LLMs, and I've seen my colleagues do…
Because plenty of people, even ones that should know better, really believe it's a conscious, thinking entity, not just some turn of phrase. I have a coworker that spends at least 10 hours a week arguing with his like you would with a conscious person. I've gently tried to explain it's like arguing with your compiler for giving you an incoherent error message - it's pointless. It doesn't understand, it can't understa…
I know people who are like that too.
I'm not sure anthropomorphizing is a problem. Seeing analogies everywhere is an innate human trait, sometimes it can be harmful but more often it's useful.
Is anthropomorphizing a real problem? From what I know, none of the serious LLM researchers believe it has anything to do with human reasoning, apart from Anthropic with their click-baity terminology like "LLM biology". It's just a metaphor. "Reasoning tokens" is simpler to say than "learned prompt augmentation tokens". I used to (and still do) anthropomorphize things long before LLMs, and I've seen my colleagues do…
Because plenty of people, even ones that should know better, really believe it's a conscious, thinking entity, not just some turn of phrase. I have a coworker that spends at least 10 hours a week arguing with his like you would with a conscious person. I've gently tried to explain it's like arguing with your compiler for giving you an incoherent error message - it's pointless. It doesn't understand, it can't understa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a position paper. Its purpose is to advocate for a specific viewpoint to the ML community. From [1]: "Position papers make an argument for a viewpoint or perspective about what should be done [...]" [1] https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers
Sure, and the parent comment's position is that they dislike it. Its purpose is to advocate against clickbait titles becoming normalized in the scientific community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because plenty of people, even ones that should know better, really believe it's a conscious, thinking entity, not just some turn of phrase. I have a coworker that spends at least 10 hours a week arguing with his like you would with a conscious person. I've gently tried to explain it's like arguing with your compiler for giving you an incoherent error message - it's pointless. It doesn't understand, it can't understa…
Do you have a working definition of "conscious"?
*Paging Peter Watts and Vernor Vinge
Is anthropomorphizing a real problem? From what I know, none of the serious LLM researchers believe it has anything to do with human reasoning, apart from Anthropic with their click-baity terminology like "LLM biology". It's just a metaphor. "Reasoning tokens" is simpler to say than "learned prompt augmentation tokens". I used to (and still do) anthropomorphize things long before LLMs, and I've seen my colleagues do…