This has already been solved by GPT 5 Adaptive reasoning. A single model that knows when to reason or not based on a thinking parameter we provide (like xhigh). What’s the relevancy to post it today?

edit: why is this downvoted?

▲

globnomulous 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's being downvoted, I think, for a few reasons:

* The person who posted it likely posted it not as an out-of-date paper but as an interesting idea. Your comment ignores the idea and focuses on what you're calling its out-of-dateness.

* You say "this has been solved" without defining what "this" is.

* Your description of the solution -- different effort levels -- seems to indicate that you misunderstand the idea that the paper is proposing. If I understand their proposal, it's that the system itself decides how to reason based on the nature of the problem it faces, given the model's world model and past experience. "Effort" isn't so much the issue as types of effort using different systems, modeled specifically after Kahneman's idea of fast and slow thinking.

* The title is an allusion to a book by Daniel Kahneman. The brisk dismissal without acknowledging the idea or the history doesn't leave a good impression, even if I'm mistaken and you're right.

In short, Hacker News readers tend to reward depth and detail (the FAQ specifically encourages thoughtful contributions and explicitly discourages dismissal). Your comment doesn't provide them, and it appears to make a mistake that further undermines its value as a contribution to discussion.

▲

simianwords 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> it's that the system itself decides how to reason based on the nature of the problem it faces, given the model's world model.

do you even know how adaptive reasoning works?

▲

globnomulous 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Godspeed to you in your efforts to contribute productively to Hacker News threads.

	▲	simianwords 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> For the first time, GPT‑5.1 Instant can use adaptive reasoning to decide when to think before responding to more challenging questions, resulting in more thorough and accurate answers, while still responding quickly. This is reflected in significant improvements on math and coding evaluations like AIME 2025 and Codeforces. https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-1/ It says literally the thing you wanted from system 2. Its almost exactly that. This is what you said btw: "it's that the system itself decides how to reason based on the nature of the problem it faces"

▲

lelanthran 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> This has already been solved by GPT 5 Adaptive reasoning. A single model that knows when to reason or not based on a thinking parameter we provide (like xhigh). What’s the relevancy to post it today?

Tell me you didn't read Daniel Khaneman's book without telling me you didn't read Daniel Khaneman's book.

▲

simianwords 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Asking earnestly, I don’t know what you mean by this reply. I know what system 1 and 2 is. But this has already been solved using same model.

▲

lelanthran 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> I know what system 1 and 2 is. But this has already been solved using same model.

No, it hasn't. Maybe you have a different definition of System 1 and System 2. I last read the book well over a decade ago (2011, maybe? 2012?), but System 1 and System 2 are different systems. IOW, System 2 is not a more computational version of System 1.

The argument you made implies that System 2 is just a more capable System 1, which is not what the book (nor this paper, AIUI) proposes.

In computery terms, System 1 runs in O(1) time, System 2 runs in O(log n) (or maybe just O(n)) time.

This means that any System 1 will run the input once through the heuristics, using the same computational power and taking the same time whether the input is 100 tokens or 1 million tokens, for quick but perhaps wrong decision (not "answer"). We don't have LLMs that do that. We have System 2 - run in O(log n) time and produce an answer.

System 1 is completely bereft of thought.

	▲	simianwords 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The argument you made implies that System 2 is just a more capable System 1, which is not what the book (nor this paper, AIUI) proposes. No, system 2 is the emergent capability to reason and increase the space of places to find the answer. Forget the paper's proposal, and look at the problem it is trying to solve. Ability to give quick answers, ability to give thought out answers, and the ability to know when to choose what. Adaptive reasoning does all three. > This means that any System 1 will run the input once through the heuristics, using the same computational power and taking the same time whether the input is 100 tokens or 1 million tokens, for quick but perhaps wrong decision (not "answer"). No, I don't think we humans use o(1) to for understanding 1000 tokens or 2 tokens. I simply don't think that's the case. There's a new model called "Jev" and it is literally named System 1 (from the book) and even it is billed per input token.

▲

bpshaver 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely that is obvious