[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> well lets just say i think i can explain reasoning better than anyone ive encountered. i have my own hypothesized theory on what it is and how it manifests in neural networks.

I'm going to bet you haven't encountered the right people then. Maybe your social circle is limited to folks like the person who presented a slide about A* to a dumb-struck roomfull of Deep Learning researchers, in the last NeurIps?

https://x.com/rao2z/status/1867000627274059949

[Agentus]

possibly, my university doesn’t really do ai research beyond using it as a tool to engineer things. im looking to transfer to a different university.

but no, my take on reasoning is really a somewhat generalized reframing of the definition of reasoning (which you might find on the stanford encylopedia of philosophy) thats reframed partially in axiomatic building blocks of neural network components/terminology. im not claiming to have discovered reasoning, just redefine it in a way thats compatible and sensible to neural networks (ish).

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Well you're free to define and redefine anything and as you like, but be aware that every time you move the target closer to your shot you are setting yourself up for some pretty strong confirmation bias.

[Agentus]

yeah thats why i need help from the machine interpretability crowd to make sure my hypothesized reframing of reasoning has sufficient empirical basis and isn’t adrift in lalaland.