| ▲ | rf33 7 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | chpatrick 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| What's the argument here? An airplane, a bee and a bird all fly despite doing it totally differently. LLMs also reason despite being made out of matmuls instead of meat. |
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > What's the argument here? The most common argument for this is some core unexamined axiom that only humans can reason by definition, and then working backwards to a justification for that. | | |
| ▲ | antonvs 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not only unexamined, but ineffable. I've yet to see anyone give a good definition of what they think "reasoning" is that applies to humans solving complex logical problems but not to machines. (I suppose a religious or otherwise superstitious person might introduce the soul into this, but I haven't come across anyone actually willing to defend that hill.) |
| |
| ▲ | zahlman 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is just a trick of language. There's no rule that says a priori whether an English word created before the invention of machines mimicking the behaviour, should describe the mimicry. There's no contradiction between "an airplane can 'fly'" and "a computer cannot 'reason'" because there is no reason why the two claims should relate whatsoever. | | |
| ▲ | chpatrick 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, but we do we have these words, and they are useful. An airplane and a bird both travel through the air. A human and an LLM both make logical deductions. | |
| ▲ | antonvs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can just look at the definitions and see whether they apply. The relevant MW definition for "reasoning" is: "the use of reason, especially: the drawing of inferences or conclusions through the use of reason." And "reason" is: "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways." Functionally speaking, i.e. in terms of observable behavior, LLMs exhibit comprehension, inferring, and reasoning. If someone wants to object to that, they'd need to explain what relevant property prevents a conclusion drawn by an LLM from being counted as involving reasoning. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | harimau777 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do you believe that they aren't reasoning? What would convince you that they are? |
|
| ▲ | hardbass 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What do you think they are doing, and do you think machines can reason (in general, not necessarily current systems)? If they can't, how do you explain humans being able to reason given that we are physical machines too? |
| |
| ▲ | Muromec 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | We have a soul given by God himself. It's written in a book. Next question? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | unrented7977 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Airplanes don't flap but they fly, just how LLMs don't think but do reason. |
|
| ▲ | AspireOne 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You're out of line. I've spent a long long time thinking about the problem of reasoning and consciousness, and it's not nearly as simple as your confidence and feeling of intellectual superiority would indicate you think it is. First, you'd obviously have to define what you even mean by reasoning, precisely. Let's hear it. Then demonstrate that LLMs do not corresponds to that description. You are making absolute statements ("They are not reasoning", "It does nothing of the sort.", "FFS lmao"), and basing your insults on this premise ("Ai Psychosis", "Know the difference."), so surely you have an extraordinarily solid ground to support that - rather than just speculation, innuendo, and a lot of confidence. P.S. I don't see why you're equaling "reasoning" with "behaving like a human". P.P.S. We don't even know if LLMs are conscious (in any way, shape or form, however foreign). We simply do not know. They might. Minds far smarter than you and me tried to answer this question, and they couldn't prove nor disprove it. So feel free to speculate, but anytime anybody makes absolute statements regarding this, they are either overconfident, underinformed, or both. |
| |
| ▲ | mcmcmc 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would argue reasoning implies agency, and LLMs have none. They only act on input. | | |
| ▲ | blackoil 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That is a harness issue. LLM needs a body to provide sensory inputs plus an infinite loop of what's next. |
|
|