[RobRivera]

Its obvious to me.

Its obvious to you.

It isnt obvious to the person I am responding to, and it isnt obvious to majority of individuals I speak with on the matter (which is why AI, personally, is in the bucket of religion amd politics for polite conversation to simply avoid)

[kenjackson]

Wait -- I'm fairly certain this is obvious to the person you were responding to. It may not be obvious to a lay person (who may not even know LLMs are trained at all). But I think this is obvious to almost all people with even a small understanding of LLMs.

[RobRivera]

I'm actually pretty convinced they're a troll or at the very least a high confrontation participant who is quick to move goal posts, ignore entire chains of logic, engage in ad hominim attacks of other posters, and is bringing zero novel insight anywhere in this thread

[simianwords]

one of the posters said it can't even reason through chess, i ran the actual benchmark, spent money and actually proved that it can beat a 1000 elo chess engine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47316787

does this show i'm a troll? throughout this thread there has been misinformation that i have been dispelling.

what you are doing is ad hominem.

here's another post where i ran the prompt that the person asked which would apparently show that LLM's can't reason

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47316855

have you considered that you might be misinformed so what i say might look like trolling?

[RobRivera]

What do you do for work?

[simianwords]

It’s obvious to me. What point are you trying to make? It’s not religion it’s falsifiable easily.

LLMs can reason about integrals as well as in a literature context. You suggested that if it’s not trained on literature then it can’t reason about it. But why does that matter?