It would be useful to supply a definition if your point is that others' definition is wrong. Are you saying they don't deduct inferences from premises? Is it "deduct" that you take issue with?

▲

zahlman 3 days ago | parent [-]

They do not perform voluntary exploration of the consequences of applying logical rules for deduction; at best they pattern-match. Their model of conceptual meaning (which last I checked still struggles with negation, meta-reference and even simply identifying irrelevant noise) is not grounded in actual observational experience, but only in correlations between text tokens.

I think it should be abundantly clear that what ChatGPT does when you ask it to play chess is fundamentally different from what Stockfish does. It isn't just weak and doesn't just make embarrassing errors in generating legal moves (like a blindfolded human might); it doesn't actually "read" and it generates post-hoc rationalization for its moves (which may not be at all logically sound) rather than choosing them with purpose.

There are "reasoning models" that improve on this somewhat, but cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44455124 from a few weeks ago, and my commentary there https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44473615 .

	▲	ToValueFunfetti 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, sure. My intuition is that LLMs reason at about a three-year-old level which appears more impressive because of their massive memories. By your definition and criticism, I take it that you wouldn't describe a three-year-old as capable of reasoning, so we're probably on the same page.