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.
-
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.
-
Dog has a very clear definition, so when you call a sausage in a bun a "Hot Dog", you are actually a fool.
Smart has a very clear definition, so no, you do not have a "Smart Phone" in your pocket.
Also, that is not the definition of intelligence. But the crux of the issue is that you are making up a definition for AI that suits your needs.
Misconstruing how language works isn't an argument for what an existing and established word means.
I'm sure that argument made you feel super clever but it's nonsense.
I sourced by definition from authoritative sources. The fact that you didn't even bother to verify that or provide an alternative authoritative definition tells me all I need to know about the value in further discussion with 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.
Iâm not talking about neural interfaces. Iâm talking about organiod intelligence.
I am a computer scientist with lab experience in this. Iâm not pulling this out of my ass. Iâm drawing from direct experience in development.
-
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.
No one told you to hand it over. A technology being able to do something does not require you to use it. And people misusing the technology to feign talent is a reflection of the people- not the tech.
-
Iâm not talking about neural interfaces. Iâm talking about organiod intelligence.
I am a computer scientist with lab experience in this. Iâm not pulling this out of my ass. Iâm drawing from direct experience in development.
Yeah, thatâs the problem with the field, too many delusional people trying to find god in a computer because they didnât understand what Asimov was actually writing about.
-
No one told you to hand it over. A technology being able to do something does not require you to use it. And people misusing the technology to feign talent is a reflection of the people- not the tech.
Itâs not even to feign talent, itâs people trying to replace the brain instead of using applicable tools to help us advance and progress, youâre just advertising a product.
-
Yeah, thatâs the problem with the field, too many delusional people trying to find god in a computer because they didnât understand what Asimov was actually writing about.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]That it has to be nothing or everything with you, decision trees or God himself, is the likely foundation of your inability to have simple objective take on the existing technology and its capabilities. Itâs giving bi-polar.
Now Iâm not uninformed- Iâm too informed!! LoL. That goalpost just shifted right across the field, and still you cannot admit to your ignorance.