> Of course, we aren't actually seeing Claude's raw thinking output: all we get is the after-the-fact prettified "summary". One wonders how much of that is a coincidence, or whether there's a reason behind that.

Most of what I've heard is that raw reasoning traces are really good for distillation, although no idea how much the summarization actually hurts distillation.

That is true, because they're good for actually understanding wtf the model is doing.

I'd argue that they're a necessity if you want to use the LLM as a tool instead of a black box that just does stuff for you.

It gives you a lot finer control over where the solution ends up when you can follow along the thinking trace and modulate your inputs based on what you saw in there.

And, additionally, it gives you a lot more understanding of what the model can or cannot do. Strengths and weaknesses and all that.

Using claude is like buying a car where you cannot legally open the hood. It tells you that there is something specific under there, and often it actually drives like that too, but how exactly it looks you will never see.

For some people this is fine. I do not think that these people will survive. Figuratively speaking but also literally speaking.

World's changing. Opaque abstraction like that is a luxury depending on (geo)political stability.

I wonder how many prompts you can send asking it to think step-by-step before they cut you off. Trying to get the reasoning traces into the body of the response, essentially. Or maybe that’s been effectively nerfed somehow. Or is not very useful.