[lovich]

I didn’t say most humans “would” do it. I said humans “could” do it, whereas our current AI paradigms like LLMs do not have the capability to perform at that level by definition of their structure.

If you want to continue this conversation I’m willing to do so but you will need to lay out an actual argument for me as to how AI models are actually capable of reasoning or quit it with the faux outrage.

I laid out some reasonings and explicit examples for you in regards to my position, it’s time for you to do the same

[p1esk]

I personally cannot “figure out quaternions as a solution to gimbal locking or the theory of relativity”. I’m just not as smart as Einstein. Does it mean I’m not capable of reasoning? Because it seems that’s what you are implying. If you truly believe that then I’m not sure how I could argue anything - after all, that would require reasoning ability.

Does having this conversation require reasoning abilities? If no, then what are we doing? If yes, then LLMs can reason too.

[lovich]

Cool, you've established a floor with yourself as a baseline. You still haven't explained how LLMs are capable of reaching this level of logic.

I'm also fully willing to argue that you, personally are less competent than an LLM if this is the level of logic you are bringing to the conversation

***** highlighting for everyone clutching their pearls to parse the next sentence fragment first ******

and want to use that are proof that humans and LLMs are equivalent at reasoning

******* end pearl clutching highlight *******

, but that doesn't mean I don't humans are capable of more