Exactly. If LLMs don’t reason, then neither do humans.
Functionally, we can analyze LLM output and point to examples of reasoning, and examples that imply understanding.
The problem is there’s a lot of superstition around words like reasoning and understanding. People imagine some ineffable quality that only humans possess that distinguish what they do from what models can do, but they can’t define it - most likely, because it doesn’t exist.
I'm in the really annoying and lonely (not necessarily in that order) camp of people who think it probably does exist but isn't properly described by these specious and lazy arguments.
Exactly. If LLMs don’t reason, then neither do humans.
Functionally, we can analyze LLM output and point to examples of reasoning, and examples that imply understanding.
The problem is there’s a lot of superstition around words like reasoning and understanding. People imagine some ineffable quality that only humans possess that distinguish what they do from what models can do, but they can’t define it - most likely, because it doesn’t exist.