| ▲ | inigyou a day ago |
| Reasoning traces are also probable explanations. |
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah but at that point it's probably close enough. Humans can get their own reasoning wrong too so some inaccuracy is acceptable. |
| |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | It's exactly as close as asking for it after the fact. Reasoning traces have no relation to the reasons LLMs actually do things, except that they may do things because the reasoning trace says they should. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | | It's exactly as close except when it isn't? | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, and when it isn't is a very specific very limited case that has no relation to the one being discussed. The fact that some course of action was previously mentioned in a reasoning trace, or any other context, makes it more likely to be performed. It has nothing to do with the reason that it was mentioned in the reasoning trace. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't think it's that limited of a case. And it's not "no relation", it was brought up as an attempt to fix/subset the original claim. | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it's just warding off pedantry. There is one way that reasoning traces might "be the reason" something happens, but that's different from the reasoning trace saying why something happens, which was the question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Zambyte a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not if the reasoning trace happened before they actually did the change. |
| |
