Comment on Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all.

• Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    that’s very true, I’m just saying this paper did not eliminate the possibility and is thus not as significant as it sounds. If they had accomplished that, the bubble would collapse, this will not meaningfully change anything, however.

    source

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      This paper does provide a solid proof by counterexample of reasoning not occuring (following an algorithm) when it should.

      The paper doesn’t need to prove that reasoning never has or will occur. It’s only demonstrates that current claims of AI reasoning are overhyped.

      source

      • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It does need to do that to meaninfully change anything, however.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• 0ops@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Is “model” not defined as architecture+weights? Those models certainly don’t share the same architecture. I might just be confused about your point though

  source

  • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It is, but this did not prove all architectures cannot reason, nor did it prove that all sets of weights cannot reason.

    essentially they did not prove the issue is fundamental. And they have a pretty similar architecture, they’re all transformers trained in a similar way.

    source

    • 0ops@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Ah, gotcha

      source