[js8]

Feynman had a really nice story about how he was into puzzles when he was at Princeton. It took him a while to solve the new ones, but eventually he learned all the well-known instances so he could answer instantly. It made him a genius in other people's eyes.

All I want from AGI is to demonstrate that it can solve a straightforward logic problems (puzzles, if you will), that it provably didn't see before. Or at least recognize it is being indirectly given such task. So far, evidence suggests it is not capable of that.

[cjbprime]

There's a 150-page paper solely to describe instances of it doing that. It's the article attached to this comment thread.

[js8]

Well, it's about the standard of the proof. When I say "demonstrate", I don't mean just experimentally, I mean theoretically, to show that the algorithm is capable of reasoning about potentially arbitrarily large instances of puzzles.

That's what the experiments have shown - once the unknown instance gets large enough, the reasoning of LLM breaks down. This is not the case with humans, who can, as noted elsewhere, do a tree search, form hypotheses, etc.

[antibasilisk]

The paper in question demonstrates it doing exactly this with varying success.