[ak_111]

Are you suggesting Humans can't do formal reasoning? Because you can easily teach a four year old not to make illegal moves in chess with very little instructions, and by 10 geniuses like Terence Tao were discussing open math problems with Erdos. If anything this article adds further evidence that whatever the architecture of the human brain it is very different to an LLM architecture.

[exe34]

> Are you suggesting Humans can't do formal reasoning?

most of them can't. they actively vote against their own interests and everybody else around them. if you confront them with facts and figures, they ignore it and resort to emotional appeals.

just because you can find one child that can play chess at age 4 doesn't mean that the rest won't just eat the pieces and shit on the board.

[atommclain]

I've never been a fan of the argument of how voting against your own interest is some gap in logic. To me it can mean multiple things, one could be not understanding the implications of what that vote could mean, the other is a full understanding but wanting to put "the greater good" above the self. I would not want to live in a society where everyone only votes for their own interests.

[exe34]

it's not the voting that's the question here, it's that it's based on fallacious arguments, to the point that they will still go for it even when it's against their own interests and their neighbours.

[yunwal]

It would be practically, if not literally, impossible to formally prove that you voted for/against your own interests, if you could even define what that means. Formal reasoning means a specific thing.

[8note]

No, but that's irrelevant to whether humans do formal reasoning. Generally, we don't. Eg. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UBVV8pch1dM&pp=ygUhdGhpbmtpbmc...

[Scarblac]

He said most humans. Comparing the LLM to Terence Tao is saying they're already better than almost every human.

[ak_111]

The difference in Terence Tao's brain architecture to most humans is extremely minimal, even non-existent.

[asdasdsddd]

Oh please, a 4 year old would definitely miss a pin like that. Also I bet that if you give a detailed explanation of the game of chess to a llm, it would definitely be able to figure out that there's a pin in the position. Also, I bet the LLM would understand the monty hall problem better than erdos :))

[yongjik]

> Because you can easily teach a four year old not to make illegal moves in chess with very little instructions ...

Have you seen actual four year olds? Most would not only make illegal moves, they will also throw a few pieces away, place their favorite giraffe next to the "horse," and laugh at your frustration. Thus proving, once and for all, that four year olds are not in fact intelligent. /s