This! Capitalism is going to be the end of us all. OpenAI has gotten away with IP Theft, disinformation regarding AI and maybe even murder of their whistle blower.

Intuition is about the only thing it has. It's a statistical system. The problem is it doesn't have logic. We assume because its computer based that it must be more logic oriented but it's the opposite. That's the problem. We can't get it to do logic very well because it basically feels out the next token by something like instinct. In particular it doesn't mask or disconsider irrelevant information very well if two segments are near each other in embedding space, which doesn't guarantee relevance. So then the model is just weighing all of this info, relevant or irrelevant to a weighted feeling for the next token.

This is the core problem. People can handle fuzzy topics and discrete topics. But we really struggle to create any system that can do both like we can. Either we create programming logic that is purely discrete or we create statistics that are fuzzy.

Of course this issue of masking out information that is close in embedding space but is irrelevant to a logical premise is something many humans suck at too. But high functioning humans don't and we can't get these models to copy that ability. Too many people, sadly many on the left in particular, not only will treat association as always relevant but sometimes as equivalence. RE racism is assoc with nazism is assoc patriarchy is historically related to the origins of capitalism ∴ nazism ≡ capitalism. While national socialism was anti-capitalist. Associative thinking removes nuance. And sadly some people think this way. And they 100% can be replaced by LLMs today, because at least the LLM is mimicking what logic looks like better though still built on blind association. It just has more blind associations and finetune weighting for summing them. More than a human does. So it can carry that to mask as logical further than a human who is on the associative thought train can.

When given explicit instructions to follow models failed because they had not seen similar instructions before.

This paper shows that there is no reasoning in LLMs at all, just extended pattern matching.

Yeah these comments have the three hallmarks of Lemmy:

• AI is just autocomplete mantras.
• Apple is always synonymous with bad and dumb.
• Rare pockets of really thoughtful comments.

Thanks for being at least the latter.

What confuses me is that we seemingly keep pushing away what counts as reasoning. Not too long ago, some smart alghoritms or a bunch of instructions for software (if/then) was officially, by definition, software/computer reasoning. Logically, CPUs do it all the time. Suddenly, when AI is doing that with pattern recognition, memory and even more advanced alghoritms, it's no longer reasoning? I feel like at this point a more relevant question is "What exactly is reasoning?". Before you answer, understand that most humans seemingly live by pattern recognition, not reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning_system

The "Apple" part. CEOs only care what companies say.

Proving it matters. Science is constantly proving any other thing that people believe is obvious because people have an uncanning ability to believe things that are false. Some people will believe things long after science has proven them false.

Even defining reason is hard and becomes a matter of philosophy more than science. For example, apply the same claims to people. Now I've given you something to think about. Or should I say the Markov chain in your head has a new topic to generate thought states for.

This paper doesn’t prove that LLMs aren’t good at pattern recognition, it demonstrates the limits of what pattern recognition alone can achieve, especially for compositional, symbolic reasoning.

No, and to make that work using the current structures we use for creating AI models we’d probably need all the collective computing power on earth at once.

LLMs deal with tokens. Essentially, predicting a series of bytes.

Humans do much, much, much, much, much, much, much more than that.

Why would they "prove" something that's completely obvious?

I don’t want to be critical, but I think if you step back a bit and look and what you’re saying, you’re asking why we would bother to experiment and prove what we think we know.

That’s a perfectly normal and reasonable scientific pursuit. Yes, in a rational society the burden of proof would be on the grifters, but that’s never how it actually works. It’s always the doctors disproving the cure-all, not the snake oil salesmen failing to prove their own prove their own product.

There is value in this research, even if it fits what you already believe on the subject. I would think you would be thrilled to have your hypothesis confirmed.

They’re just using the terminology that’s widespread in the field. In a sense, the paper’s purpose is to prove that this terminology is unsuitable.

That's called science