>Three shortcomings prevent what chatbots do from qualifying as reasoning
>First, these models typically maintain no explicit, persistent, and inspectable epistemic state.
>Second, they lack a clean separation between what the system knows and how it manipulates that knowledge
>Third, while the chains of thought chatbots produce look like deliberation, research has demonstrated that the bots often concoct them after the fact
I think humans are guilty of all three of those? If you use that to say LLMs can't reason you may be saying humans can't reason either which is kind of unreasonable.
The author's thesis might we better put that we could increase the reliability and openness of AI by building it so we can inspect its data, assumptions and reasoning process.
tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
>First, these models typically maintain no explicit, persistent, and inspectable epistemic state.
>Second, they lack a clean separation between what the system knows and how it manipulates that knowledge
>Third, while the chains of thought chatbots produce look like deliberation, research has demonstrated that the bots often concoct them after the fact
I think humans are guilty of all three of those? If you use that to say LLMs can't reason you may be saying humans can't reason either which is kind of unreasonable.
The author's thesis might we better put that we could increase the reliability and openness of AI by building it so we can inspect its data, assumptions and reasoning process.