[somenameforme]

They do a phenomenal job of guessing the next word, and our language is redundant enough that that alone, carried out recursively, can produce quite interesting results. But reasoning? I'm certain everybody has gotten in this pattern, because it happens on pretty much anything where the LLM doesn't answer right on the first shot:

---

LLM: The answer is A.

Me: That's wrong. Try again.

LLM: Oh I'm sorry, you're completely right. The answer is B.

Me: That's wrong. Try again.

LLM: Oh I'm sorry, you're completely right. The answer is A.

Me: Time to short NVDA.

LLM: As an AI language learning model without real-time market data or the ability to predict future stock movements, I can't advise on whether it's an appropriate time to short NVIDIA or any other stock.

---

[kkzz99]

Guess you have not tried more advanced prompting techniques like CoT, Agents and RAG.

[ipsum2]

Those are buzzwords, not advanced prompting techniques.

[kkzz99]

What are you even on about? This sentence has absolute zero value for the discussion at hand.

[imtringued]

Yeah, if an LLM was truly capable of reasoning, then whenever it makes a mistake, e.g. due to randomness or due to lack of knowledge, then pointing out the mistakes and giving steps on correcting the mistakes should result in basically a 100% success rate, since the assistant has infinite capacity to accommodate the LLM's weaknesses.

When you look at things like https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06195 you notice that the amount of tokens needed to solve trivial tasks is somewhat ridiculous. On the order of 300k tokens for a simple grade school problem. That is roughly three hours at a rate of 30 token/s. You could fill 400 pages of a book with that many tokens.