The latter. When "understand", "reason", "think", "feel", "believe", and any of a long list of similar words are in any title, it immediately makes me think the author already drank the kool aid.

▲ manveerc 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

In the context of coding agents, they do simulate “reasoning” when you feed them the output and it is able to correct itself.

▲ qwertytyyuu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with “feel” and “believe” but what words would you suggest instead of “understand” and “reason’?

▲

sema4hacker 3 days ago | parent [-]

None. Don't anthropomorphize at all. Note that "understanding" has now been removed from the HN title but not the linked pdf.

▲

platypii 3 days ago | parent [-]

Why not? We are trying to evaluate AI's capabilities. It's OBVIOUS that we should compare it to our only prior example of intelligence -- humans. Saying we shouldn't compare or anthropomorphize machine is a ridiculous hill to die on.

	▲	sema4hacker 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you are comparing the performance of a computer program with the performance of a human, then using terms implying they both "understand" wrongly implies they work in the same human-like way, and that ends up misleading lots of people, especially those who have no idea (understanding!) how these models work. Great for marketing, though.

▲ vexna 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

kool aid or not -- "reasoning" is already part of the LLM verbiage (e.g `reasoning` models having `reasoningBudget`). The meaning might not be 1:1 to human reasoning, but when the LLM shows its "reasoning" it does look _appear_ like a train of thought. If I had to give what it's doing a name (like I'm naming a function), I'd be hard pressed to not go with something like `reason`/`think`.

	▲	insin 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		`prefillContext()`