this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2025
150 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
39403 readers
111 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone even believing that a generic word auto completer would beat classic algorithms wherever possible probably belongs into a psychiatry.
There are a lot of people out there that think LLM's are somehow reasoning. Even reasoning models aren't really doing it. It important to do demonstrations like this in the hopes that the general public will understand the limitations of this tech.
But the general public (myself included) doesn’t really understand how our own reasoning happens.
Does anyone, really? i.e., am I merely a meat computer that takes in massive amounts of input over a lifetime, builds internal models of the world, tests said models through trial-and-error, and outputs novel combinations of data when said combinations are useful for me in a given context in said world?
Is what I do when I “reason” really all that different from what an LLM does, fundamentally? Do I do more than language prediction when I “think”? And if so, what is it?
We understand reasoning enough to know humans (and other animals with complex brains) reason in a way that LLMs cannot.
While our reasoning also works with pattern matching it incorporates immeasurably more signals than language - language is almost peripheric to it even in humans. And more importantly we experience things, everything we do acts as a small training round not just in language but on every aspect of the task we are performing, and gives us a miriad of patterns to match later.
Until AI can match a fragment of this we are not going to have an AGI. And for the experience aspect there's no economic incentive under capitalism to achieve, if it happens it will come out of an underfunded university.