▲ | naasking 5 days ago | |||||||
> It's trivial to demonstrate that LLMs are pattern matching rather than reasoning. Again, this is just asserting the premise that reasoning cannot include pattern matching, but this has never been justified. What is your definition for "reasoning"? > This is clearly pattern matching and overfitting to the "doctor riddle" and a good demonstration of how there's no actual reasoning going on. Not really, no. "Bad reasoning" does not entail "no reasoning". Your conclusion is simply too strong for the evidence available, which is why I'm asking for a rigourous definition of reasoning that doesn't leave room for disagreement about whether pattern matching counts. | ||||||||
▲ | 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
[deleted] | ||||||||
▲ | mjr00 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
If your assertion is that you can't prove reasoning isn't just pattern matching, then I counter by saying you can't prove reasoning isn't just chaining a large number of IF/THEN/ELSE logic statements and therefore computers have been generally intelligent since ~1960. | ||||||||
|