> There's nothing "omniscient" or "dim-witted" about these tools. They have no wit. They do not think or reason.
> All Large "Reasoning" Models do is generate data that they use as context to generate the final answer. I.e. they do real-time tuning based on synthetic data.
I always wonder when people make comments like this if they struggle with analogies. Or if it's a lack of desire to discuss concepts at different levels of abstraction.
Clearly an LLM is not "omniscient". It doesn't require a post to refute that, OP obviously doesn't mean that literally. It's an analogy describing two semi (fairly?) independent axes. One on breadth of knowledge, one on something more similar to intelligence and being able to "reason" from smaller components of knowledge. The opposite of which is dim witted.
So at one extreme you'd have something completely unable to generalize or synthesize new results. Only able to correctly respond if it identically matches prior things it has seen, but has seen and stored a ton. At the other extreme would be something that only knows a very smal set of general facts and concepts but is extremely good at reasoning from first principles on the fly. Both could "score" the same on an evaluation, but have very different projections for future growth.
It's a great analogy and way to think about the problem. And it me multiple paragraphs to write ehat OP expressed in two sentences via a great analogy.
LLMs are a blend of the two skills, apparently leaning more towards the former but not completely.
> What we do have are very good pattern matchers and probabilistic data generators
This an unhelpful description. And object is more than the sum of its parts. And higher levels behaviors emerge. This statement is factually correct and yet the equivalent of describing a computer as nothing more than a collection of gates and wires so shouldn't be discussed at a higher level of abstraction.