It’s curious how they solve unsolved math problems without reasoning. Maybe I have a different definition of reasoning than you.

Jury is still out on this one.

This needs to be routine to be given asevidence…

…Unless you know exactly how the llm was trained and then how it was applied

emp17344 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Guess what? SAT solvers have also solved unsolved math problems. Do you believe they are “reasoning”?

The question of whether a SAT solver can reason is about as interesting as the question of whether a submarine can swim. (EWD867, EWD898)

	▲	Lerc 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think you are missing the point of that statement It is a claim that swimming is a word that defines a context. It is an explicit statement that the question of whether a submarine can swim has nothing to do with the capability of the submarine. If you are asking which pigeon hole we are putting something into, the answer is "The one we put it into". This is what make the question uninteresting. If you are asking what is it about this pigeon hole that people value and does that align with the criteria that people use to decide categorisation. That very much is an interesting and complicated question.