People should read the article instead of responding with what they believe to be clever quips. The article's author gives a very good argument for why what LLMs are doing in their chain of thought is not reasoning.
Yes, and keep in mind also the article author is chair of machine learning at University College London and was a core member of the AlphaGo team at DeepMind.
This said, just because it's an argument from authority doesn't necessarily mean it's a good argument. You'll have to read and break down the arguments and weight them against other arguments and the body of knowledge we have.
If argument from authority was valid in itself, then LeCun would have killed LLMs like 300 different times now, and yet keeps being wrong.
Although they don't mention anything, the authors website seems like they are tee'ing up for a new start-up. They present their future ambitions (merging two technologies they know well) and that they recently left deepmind, so it at least smells a lot like laying groundwork for a new start-up.
vmg12 · · focus · HN ↗
Chinjut · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
If argument from authority was valid in itself, then LeCun would have killed LLMs like 300 different times now, and yet keeps being wrong.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
WarmWash · · focus · HN ↗