| ▲ | mentalgear 7 days ago |
| > Whether AI reasoning is “real” reasoning or just a mirage can be an interesting question, but it is primarily a philosophical question. It depends on having a clear definition of what “real” reasoning is, exactly. It's pretty easy: causal reasoning. Causal, not statistic correlation only as LLM do, with or without "CoT". |
|
| ▲ | glial 7 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure it's so simple. LLMs are called causal models in the sense that earlier tokens "cause" later tokens, that is, later tokens are causally dependent on what the earlier tokens are. If you mean deterministic rather than probabilistic, even Pearl-style causal models are probabilistic. I think the author is circling around the idea that their idea of reasoning is to produce statements in a formal system: to have a set of axioms, a set of production rules, and to generate new strings/sentences/theorems using those rules. This approach is how math is formalized. It allows us to extrapolate - make new "theorems" or constructions that weren't in the "training set". |
| |
| ▲ | jayd16 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | By this definition a bag of answers is causal reasoning because we previously filled the bag, which caused what we pulled. State causing a result is not causal reasoning. You need to actually have something that deduces a result from a set of principles that form a logical conclusion or the understanding that more data is needed to make a conclusion. That is clearly different than finding a likely next token on statics alone, despite the fact the statical answer can be correct. | |
| ▲ | d4rkn0d3z 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Two thoughts: 1) As far as I recall this program of formalizing mathematics fails unless you banish autoregression. 2) It is important to point out that a theorem in this context is not the same as a "Theorem" from mathematics. Production rules generate theorems that comply with rules and axioms of the formal system, ensuring that they could have meaning in that formal system. The meaning cannot justify the rules though, fortunately, most know to use the rules of logic so that we are not grunting beasts, incapable of conveying information. I think the author wonders why theorems that don't seem to have meanings appear in the output of AI. | |
| ▲ | apples_oranges 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But let's say you change your mathematical expression by reducing or expanding it somehow, then, unless it's trivial, there are infinite ways to do it, and the "cause" here is the answer to the question of "why did you do that and not something else"? Brute force excluded, the cause is probably some idea, some model of the problem or a gut feeling (or desperation..) .. | |
| ▲ | stonemetal12 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Smoking increases the risk of getting cancer significantly. We say Smoking causes Cancer. Causal reasoning can be probabilistic. LLMs are not causal reasoning because there are no facts, only tokens. For the most part you can't ask LLMs how they came to an answer, because it doesn't know. |
|
|
| ▲ | lordnacho 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What's stopping us from building an LLM that can build causal trees, rejecting some trees and accepting others based on whatever evidence it is fed? Or even a causal tool for an LLM agent that operates like what it does when you ask it about math and forwards the request to Wolfram. |
| |
| ▲ | suddenlybananas 7 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >What's stopping us from building an LLM that can build causal trees, rejecting some trees and accepting others based on whatever evidence it is fed? Exponential time complexity. | |
| ▲ | blackbear_ 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In principle this is possible, modulo scalability concerns: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.06039 Perhaps this will one day become a new post-training task |
|
|
| ▲ | mdp2021 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > causal reasoning You have missed the foundation: before dynamics, being. Before causal reasoning you have deep definition of concepts. Causality is "below" that. |
|
| ▲ | naasking 7 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Define causal reasoning? |
