Technology

I think it's important to note (i'm not an llm I know that phrase triggers you to assume I am) that they haven't proven this as an inherent architectural issue, which I think would be the next step to the assertion.

do we know that they don't and are incapable of reasoning, or do we just know that for x problems they jump to memorized solutions, is it possible to create an arrangement of weights that can genuinely reason, even if the current models don't? That's the big question that needs answered. It's still possible that we just haven't properly incentivized reason over memorization during training.

if someone can objectively answer "no" to that, the bubble collapses.

Thank you Captain Obvious! Only those who think LLMs are like "little people in the computer" didn't knew this already.

Would like a link to the original research paper, instead of a link of a screenshot of a screenshot

It's all "one instruction at a time" regardless of high processor speeds and words like "intelligent" being bandied about. "Reason" discussions should fall into the same query bucket as "sentience".

Of course, that is obvious to all having basic knowledge of neural networks, no?

XD so, like a regular school/university student that just wants to get passing grades?