Comment by Frost1x

“Thinking” is just a guiding methodology to help iterations (between the initial prompt, results, and a mixture of harness back and forth to the LLM) converge on something sane in a massive parameter space.

I like to think of it much like (as a common example most people can relate to) the Newton-Rhapson method for finding roots of a (mathematic) function. Your initial prompt runs, then the ‘harness’ kicks in using whatever methodologies are behind them to iterate on that prompt (back and forth with the model, occasionally with the user to get better guidance) and refine the outputs to hopefully converge back to some sensible output or actions the user was initially looking for.

So you’re hoping for an LLM that sort of ‘zero shots’ or needs minimal iterations from a prompt to give usable results. I find from my anecdata it varies across models and what I’m trying to get it to converge on. I tend to prefer models to not zero shot attempt because they tend to not do great, I want them to get feedback often to let me push them down the route of convergence in spaces I already understand well, meanwhile I like them to explore and give me new paths in spaces I’m not too familiar with.

That’s really what all that “second guessing” is, it’s making sure you’re following a sane path in a massive parameter space of an ambiguously defined problem. Imagine if in Newton’s method you checked the slope and it didn’t decrease from the last iteration and you just say “screw it let’s keep trying that direction.” LLMs and their harnesses tend not to have that base assumption like iteration on decreasing slopes to guide them closer to convergence, it’s a lot messier.