Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. They just memorize patterns really well.
-
NOOOOOOOOO
SHIIIIIIIIIITT
SHEEERRRLOOOOOOCK
The funny thing about this "AI" griftosphere is how grifters will make some outlandish claim and then different grifters will "disprove" it. Plenty of grant/VC money for everybody.
-
What's hilarious/sad is the response to this article over on reddit's "singularity" sub, in which all the top comments are people who've obviously never got all the way through a research paper in their lives all trashing Apple and claiming their researchers don't understand AI or "reasoning". It's a weird cult.
-
The difference between reasoning models and normal models is reasoning models are two steps, to oversimplify it a little they prompt "how would you go about responding to this" then prompt "write the response"
It's still predicting the most likely thing to come next, but the difference is that it gives the chance for the model to write the most likely instructions to follow for the task, then the most likely result of following the instructions - both of which are much more conformant to patterns than a single jump from prompt to response.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The difference between reasoning models and normal models is reasoning models are two steps,
That's a garbage definition of "reasoning". Someone who is not a grifter would simply call them two-step models (or similar), instead of promoting misleading anthropomorphic terminology.
-
Well - if you want to devolve into argument, you can argue all day long about "what is reasoning?"
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You were starting a new argument. Let's stay on topic.
The paper implies "Reasoning" is application of logic. It shows that LRMs are great at copying logic but can't follow simple instructions that haven't been seen before.
-
those particular models. It does not prove the architecture doesn't allow it at all. It's still possible that this is solvable with a different training technique, and none of those are using the right one. that's what they need to prove wrong.
this proves the issue is widespread, not fundamental.
The architecture of these LRMs may make monkeys fly out of my butt. It hasn't been proven that the architecture doesn't allow it.
You are asking to prove a negative. The onus is to show that the architecture can reason. Not to prove that it can't.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]By many definitions, reasoning IS just a form of pattern recognition so the lines are definitely blurred.
-
Yeah I often think about this Rick N Morty cartoon. Grifters are like, "We made an AI ankle!!!" And I'm like, "That's not actually something that people with busted ankles want. They just want to walk. No need for a sentient ankle." It's a real gross distortion of science how everything needs to be "AI" nowadays.
AI is just the new buzzword, just like blockchain was a while ago. Marketing loves these buzzwords because they can get away with charging more if they use them. They don't much care if their product even has it or could make any use of it.
-
I see a lot of misunderstandings in the comments đ«€
This is a pretty important finding for researchers, and it's not obvious by any means. This finding is not showing a problem with LLMs' abilities in general. The issue they discovered is specifically for so-called "reasoning models" that iterate on their answer before replying. It might indicate that the training process is not sufficient for true reasoning.
Most reasoning models are not incentivized to think correctly, and are only rewarded based on their final answer. This research might indicate that's a flaw that needs to be corrected before models can actually reason.
Cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter (1979) showed reasoning emerges from pattern recognition and analogy-making - abilities that modern AI demonstrably possesses. The question isn't if AI can reason, but how its reasoning differs from ours.
-
Impressive = / = substantial or beneficial.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]These are almost the exact same talking points we used to hear about âwhy would anyone need a home computer?â Wild how some people can be so consistently short-sighted again and again and again.
What makes you think youâre capable of sentience, when your comments are all cliches and youâre incapable of personal growth or vision or foresight?
-
By many definitions, reasoning IS just a form of pattern recognition so the lines are definitely blurred.
And does it even matter anyway?
For the sake of argument let's say that somebody manages to create an AGI, does it reasoning abilities if it works anyway? No one has proven that sapience is required for intelligence, after all we only have a sample size of one, hardly any conclusions can really be drawn from that.
-
We actually have sentience, though, and are capable of creating new things and having realizations. AI isnât real and LLMs and dispersion models are simply reiterating algorithmic patterns, no LLM or dispersion model can create anything original or expressive.
Also, we arenât âevolved primates.â We are just primates, the thing is, primates are the most socially and cognitively evolved species on the planet, so thatâs not a denigrating sentiment unless your a pompous condescending little shit.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The denigration of simulated thought processes, paired with aggrandizing of wetware processing, is exactly my point. The same self-serving narcissism thatâs colored so many biased & flawed arguments in biological philosophy putting humans on a pedestal above all other animals.
Itâs also hysterical and ironic that you insist on your own level of higher thinking, as you regurgitate an argument so unoriginal that a bot couldâve easily written it. Just absolutely no self-awareness.
-
These are almost the exact same talking points we used to hear about âwhy would anyone need a home computer?â Wild how some people can be so consistently short-sighted again and again and again.
What makes you think youâre capable of sentience, when your comments are all cliches and youâre incapable of personal growth or vision or foresight?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]What makes you think youâre capable of sentience when youâre asking machines to literally think for you?
-
The denigration of simulated thought processes, paired with aggrandizing of wetware processing, is exactly my point. The same self-serving narcissism thatâs colored so many biased & flawed arguments in biological philosophy putting humans on a pedestal above all other animals.
Itâs also hysterical and ironic that you insist on your own level of higher thinking, as you regurgitate an argument so unoriginal that a bot couldâve easily written it. Just absolutely no self-awareness.
Itâs not higher thinking, itâs just actual thinking. Computers are not capable of that and never will be. Itâs not a level of fighting progress, or whatever you are trying to get at, itâs just a realistic understanding of computers and technology. Youâre jerking off a pipe dream, you donât even understand how the technology youâre talking about works, and calling a brain âwetwareâ perfectly outlines that. Youâre working on a script writers level of understanding how computers, hardware, and software work. You lack the grasp to even know what youâre talking about, this isnât Johnny Mnemonic.
-
What makes you think youâre capable of sentience when youâre asking machines to literally think for you?
LoL. Am I less sentient for using a calculator?
Youâre astoundingly confident in your own sentience, for someone who seems to struggle to form an original thought. Itâs like the convo was lifted straight out of that I, Robot interrogation scene. You hold the machines to standards you canât meet yourself.
-
LoL. Am I less sentient for using a calculator?
Youâre astoundingly confident in your own sentience, for someone who seems to struggle to form an original thought. Itâs like the convo was lifted straight out of that I, Robot interrogation scene. You hold the machines to standards you canât meet yourself.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Funny you should use that example, I am actually a musician and composer, so yes. Youâve proved nothing other than your own assumptions that everyone else is as limited in their ability to create, learn, and express themselves as you are. Iâm not looking for a crutch, and youâre using a work of intentionally flawed fictional logic to attempt to make a point. The point youâve established is you live in a fantasy world, but you donât understand that because it involves computers.
-
I mean⊠âprovingâ is also just marketing speak. There is no clear definition of reasoning, so thereâs also no way to prove or disprove that something/someone reasons.
Claiming it's just marketing fluff is indicates you do not know what you're talking about.
They published a research paper on it. You are free to publish your own paper disproving theirs.
At the moment, you sound like one of those "I did my own research" people except you didn't even bother doing your own research.
-
Itâs not higher thinking, itâs just actual thinking. Computers are not capable of that and never will be. Itâs not a level of fighting progress, or whatever you are trying to get at, itâs just a realistic understanding of computers and technology. Youâre jerking off a pipe dream, you donât even understand how the technology youâre talking about works, and calling a brain âwetwareâ perfectly outlines that. Youâre working on a script writers level of understanding how computers, hardware, and software work. You lack the grasp to even know what youâre talking about, this isnât Johnny Mnemonic.
I call the brain âwetwareâ because there are companies already working with living neurons to be integrated into AI processing, and itâs an actual industry term.
That you so confidently declare machines will never be capable of processes we havenât even been able to clearly define ourselves, paired with your almost religious fervor in opposition to its existence, really speaks to where youâre coming from on this. This isnât coming from an academic perspective. This is clearly personal for you.
-
Funny you should use that example, I am actually a musician and composer, so yes. Youâve proved nothing other than your own assumptions that everyone else is as limited in their ability to create, learn, and express themselves as you are. Iâm not looking for a crutch, and youâre using a work of intentionally flawed fictional logic to attempt to make a point. The point youâve established is you live in a fantasy world, but you donât understand that because it involves computers.
And thereâs the reveal!! Thatâs why itâs so personal for you! Itâs a career threat. It all adds up now.
-
I call the brain âwetwareâ because there are companies already working with living neurons to be integrated into AI processing, and itâs an actual industry term.
That you so confidently declare machines will never be capable of processes we havenât even been able to clearly define ourselves, paired with your almost religious fervor in opposition to its existence, really speaks to where youâre coming from on this. This isnât coming from an academic perspective. This is clearly personal for you.
Hereâs the thing, Iâm not against LLMs and dispersion for things they can actually be used for, they have potential for real things, just not at all the things you pretend exist. Neural implants arenât AI. An intelligence is self aware, if we achieved AI it wouldnât be a program. Youâre misconstruing Virtual Intelligence for artificial intelligence and you donât even understand what a virtual intelligence is. Youâre simply delusional in what you believe computer science and technology is, how it works, and what itâs capable of.
-
And thereâs the reveal!! Thatâs why itâs so personal for you! Itâs a career threat. It all adds up now.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I donât make money, itâs something I do for personal enjoyment, thatâs the entire purpose of art, itâs something I also use algorithmic processing to do. Iâm not going to hand over my enjoyment to have a servitor do something for me to take credit for, I prefer to use my brain, not replace it.
