[qsera]

>No, it did not.

It did. In the form of a pattern that humans are too incapable of recongizing. LLMs identify and repeat the pattern. That is all.

For example, if A -> B and B -> C, logic dictates A -> C. But LLMs will be able to state that A -> C, without actually using logic, if there is sufficient statements in its training data that says A -> B and B -> C and A -> C. So now if you say P -> Q and Q -> R, it will say that P -> R, when there is no explict P -> R in the training data and NOT using logic. For you, it looks like a new discovery inferred using logic when it is not. But that is how that happens..

It is just pattern recognition masquarading as logic, x, y, or z.

[CamperBob2]

And it doesn't bother you in the slightest that "masquerading" is enough to take gold at IMO?

You're not feeling even the faintest stirrings of cognitive dissonance when a "text search" solves math problems you couldn't solve yourself?