Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#2This paper puts words to something I’ve noticed repeatedly with LLMs, particularly Qwen3.6. When I read its reasoning, it appears to recognise the mistake and then carry on as if it hadn’t noticed it at all.
> models often determine their answers based on implicit biases tied to question templates, then construct reasoning chains to justify their predetermined conclusions > its reasoning was correct right until the final step (Yes/No answer)
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#3"Study: Communing With The Gods of Mount Olympus Via the Oracle at Delphi Is Not Always Faithful"
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#4[flagged]
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#5This paper puts words to something I’ve noticed repeatedly with LLMs, particularly Qwen3.6. When I read its reasoning, it appears to recognise the mistake and then carry on as if it hadn’t noticed it at all. > models often determine their answers based on implicit biases tied to question templates, then construct reasoning chains to justify their predetermined conclusions > its reasoning was correct right until the f…
Natural intelligences do this too
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#6[dead]
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#7This paper puts words to something I’ve noticed repeatedly with LLMs, particularly Qwen3.6. When I read its reasoning, it appears to recognise the mistake and then carry on as if it hadn’t noticed it at all. > models often determine their answers based on implicit biases tied to question templates, then construct reasoning chains to justify their predetermined conclusions > its reasoning was correct right until the f…
Natural intelligences do this too
Yeah and it's not great then either
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#8This paper puts words to something I’ve noticed repeatedly with LLMs, particularly Qwen3.6. When I read its reasoning, it appears to recognise the mistake and then carry on as if it hadn’t noticed it at all. > models often determine their answers based on implicit biases tied to question templates, then construct reasoning chains to justify their predetermined conclusions > its reasoning was correct right until the f…
Natural intelligences do this too
Must we always see this restated every time? It's getting a bit stale always seeing these kinds of comments on articles about LLM.
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#9This paper puts words to something I’ve noticed repeatedly with LLMs, particularly Qwen3.6. When I read its reasoning, it appears to recognise the mistake and then carry on as if it hadn’t noticed it at all. > models often determine their answers based on implicit biases tied to question templates, then construct reasoning chains to justify their predetermined conclusions > its reasoning was correct right until the f…
[dead]
Re: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in the Wild Is Not Always Faithful (2025)
#10This paper puts words to something I’ve noticed repeatedly with LLMs, particularly Qwen3.6. When I read its reasoning, it appears to recognise the mistake and then carry on as if it hadn’t noticed it at all. > models often determine their answers based on implicit biases tied to question templates, then construct reasoning chains to justify their predetermined conclusions > its reasoning was correct right until the f…
Natural intelligences do this too
No they don't, human intelligence has the ability to form an internal model of itself, which allows it to "notice" its own mistakes and change.