[IshKebab]

Argh please stop. Everyone knows LLMs aren't AGI currently and they have annoying limitations like hallucinations. Even the "giving up" thing was known before Apple's paper.

You aren't winning anything by saying "aha! I told you they are useless!" because they demonstrably aren't.

Yes everybody is hoping that someone will come up with a better algorithm that solves these problems but until they do it's a little like complaining about the invention of the railway because it can only go on tracks while humans can go pretty much anywhere.

[ramblerman]

You don’t need to feel offended on behalf of LLMs, they are tremendously useful. But not above criticism.

There is a belief being peddled that AGI is right around the corner and we can get there by just scaling up LLMs.

Papers like this are a good takedown of that thinking

[threeseed]

> aha! I told you they are useless

You said this. Neither Apple nor the author did.

The focus was specifically on LLM's reasoning capabilities not whether they are entirely useless or not.

This is relevant because countless startups and investment is predicated on LLM's current capabilities being able to be improved and built on top of. If it is a technological dead-end then we could be in for another long lull in progress. And companies like OpenAI should have their valuations massively cut.

It also constrains the level of investment Apple would need to be comparable to top tier LLM companies.