Earlier quoted context omitted.
When an LLM solves a novel problem, it's also reasoning, unless you use some contrived definition of the word "reasoning" that doesn't match how the word is actually used in normal conversation. Also I fully expect the human brain to be encoded in a mathematical model. And if it wasn't obvious, an LLM can string together two words that it had never seen together in the training dataset, it really shows how people ten…
No. It is the AI enthusiasts that use contrived, often entirely random definitions of “reasoning”. AIs do not “think” in any capacity and are therefore incapable of reasoning. However, if you wish to take “thinking” out of the definition, where we allow an AI to try its hand at “novel (for it)” problems, then AIs fail the test horrifically. I agree, they will probably spit something out and sound confident, but sound…
Also if you train an AI on how numbers work, like humans do in school, you can tell it how much you want to believe that 2+2=5, it won't believe it, just like humans, it's obvious.