Comment by airstrike
10 hours ago
I don't have a fully perfect definition, but I can name a couple of requirements.
Ironically, both reasoning and agency are required, neither of which our "reasoning agents" possess.
10 hours ago
I don't have a fully perfect definition, but I can name a couple of requirements.
Ironically, both reasoning and agency are required, neither of which our "reasoning agents" possess.
Are you unironically claiming that LLM's can't reason? That's an absolutely wild claim in an era where they're solving Erdos problems and writing better code than many senior devs. What's the basis for it?
Agency is harder to define, but most any definition I can come up with LLM's meet. Again, I'm curious how you define it in a way that excludes frontier models but doesn't also exclude many humans.
Yes, unironically claiming that and not wild at all if you're a practitioner.
It doesn't become actual reasoning just because you chose to call it so. If they did reason, LLMs would not fail at ridiculously easy problems like strawberry or car wash ones.
LLMs are great at search. They only emulate reasoning. They can't actually reason but they approximate it. Combine it with copious amount of computes and some search problems become tractable.
> They only emulate reasoning.
If they emulate reasoning well enough that it gets the same or better results what is the difference? Semantics? I can't help but wonder if you dont percieve what they do as reasoning because its different from the way you reason?
> strawberry or car wash ones.
Humans fall for the Nigerian scam still. We all have blind spots but that doesnt imply we're all completely blind.