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.
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.
MangoCats@feddit.it 18 hours ago
I’m not trained or paid to reason, I am trained and paid to follow established corporate procedures. On rare occasions my input is sought to improve those procedures, but the vast majority of my time is spent executing tasks governed by a body of (not quite complete, sometimes conflicting) procedural instructions.
If AI can execute those procedures as well as, or better than, human employees, I doubt employers will care if it is reasoning or not.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Sure. We weren’t discussing if AI creates value or not. If you ask a different question then you get a different answer.
MangoCats@feddit.it 16 hours ago
Well - if you want to devolve into argument, you can argue all day long about “what is reasoning?”
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
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.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
This would be a much better paper if it addressed that question in an honest way.