|
|
|
|
|
|
by jmmcd
468 days ago
|
|
|
> What some people do is «not reasoning», for lack of training, or for lack of resources (e.g. time - Herbert Simon's "satisficing"), or for lack of ability. According to your definition of reasoning, which involves surely getting the right answer, no human does reasoning. Probably less than 1% of published mathematics meets the definition. > Important problems are those which require correct responses. There are many important problems where formal reasoning is not possible, and yet a decision is required, and both humans and LLMs can provide answers. "Should I accept this proposed business deal / should I declare war / what diagnostic test should I order?" We would like to have correct responses for these problems, but it is not possible, even in principle, to guarantee correctness. So yes, we use heuristics and approximate reasoning for such problems. Is an LLM "unreliable" or "dangerous" in such problems? Maybe yes, and maybe more so than humans, but maybe not, it depends on the case. To try to keep the point of the thread in focus, an LLM should probably not try to solve such problems by writing code. |
|
|
No. Let me reiterate: «"proper reasoning" is that process which given sufficient input will surely bring to a correct output owing to the effectiveness of its inner workings», given that enough resources are spent. I.e.: it is a matter of method.
And a processor that cannot solve the "detective games" shows lacking that method. (I.e.: the general capabilities that can be instanced in solving a "detective game" are required, though not exhaustive, for the reasoner.)
> we use heuristics and approximate reasoning for such problems
But we are expected to still use decent reasoning, even when bounded.
So: there may be no need to try and solve problems through writing code when the reasoning machine has the procedural modules that allow to reason similarly to running code, when such form of "diligence" is needed. When the decision is not that impactful (e.g. "best colour for the car"), let the decisor "feel"; when the decision will be impactful, I want that the decisor be able to reason.