Comment by zamalek
5 days ago
This is special pleading.
Long multiplication is a trivial form of reasoning that is taught at elementary level. Furthermore, the LLM isn't doing things "in its head" - the headline feature of GPT LLMs is attention across all previous tokens, all of its "thoughts" are on paper. That was Opus with extended reasoning, it had all the opportunity to get it right, but didn't. There are people who can quickly multiply such numbers in their head (I am not one of them).
LLMs don't reason.
I tried this with Claude - it has to be explicitly instructed to not make an external tool call, and it can get the right answer if asked to show its work long-form.
Mathematics is not the only kind of reasoning, so your conclusion is false. The human brain also has compartments for different types of activities. Why shouldn't an AI be able to use tools to augment its intelligence?
I used the mathematics example only because the GP did. There are many other examples of non-reasoning, including some papers (as recent as Feb).
There are many examples of current limitations, but do you see a reason to think they are fundamental limitations? (I'm not saying they aren't, I'm curious what the evidence is for that.)
1 reply →
Furthermore, the LLM isn't doing things "in its head" - the headline feature of GPT LLMs is attention across all previous tokens, all of its "thoughts" are on paper
LOL, talk about special pleading. Whatever it takes to reshape the argument into one you can win, I guess...
LLMs don't reason.
Let's see you do that multiplication in your head. Then, when you fail, we'll conclude you don't reason. Sound fair?
I can do it with a scratch pad. And I can also tell you when the calculation exceeds what I can do in my head and when I need a scratch pad. I can also check a long multiplication answer in my head (casting 9s, last digit etc.) and tell if there’s a mistake.
The LLMs also have access to a scratch pad. And importantly don’t know when they need to use it (as in, they will sometimes get long multiplication right if you ask them to show their work but if you don’t ask them to they will almost certainly get it wrong).
> And importantly don’t know when they need to use it
patently false, but hey at least you’re able to see the parallel between you with a scratch pad and an LLM with a python terminal
2 replies →
The conclusion that LLMs don't reason is not a consequence of them not being able to do arithmetic, so your argument isn't valid.
Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."
etc.
Plenty of humans can't do arithmetic. Can they also not reason.
Reasoning isn't a binary switch. It's a multidimensional continuum. AI can clearly reason to some extent even if it also clearly doesn't reason in the same way that a human would.
4 replies →
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive
Yes, they should, but instead we're stuck with the stochastic-parrot crowd, who log onto HN and try their best to emulate a stochastic parrot.
i assert that by your evidentiary standards humans don't reason.
presumably one of us is wrong.
therefore, humans don't reason.