[mdp2021]

> According to your definition of reasoning, which involves surely getting the right answer

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.

[jmmcd]

I've said several times that according to your definition, humans do not reason. You haven't really responded to that and I guess you're not going to. I can't quite parse your overall position, ie specifically, as I already said, whether you genuinely think LLMs should output code for most problems, or whether you were using that as a reductio against my initial statement. So, I will stop here and thank you for the discussion.

[mdp2021]

> according to your definition, humans do not reason

Some do.

> whether you genuinely think LLMs should output code for most problems, or whether you were using that as a reductio against my initial statement

No, they should not. But proper reasoning is related to procedural operations like code.