[bpodgursky]

The full thinking logs are also a summary of a thinking process presumably consistent with one necessary to generate the provided answer. Nobody really understands how LLMs think. Thinking logs seem to be accurate, and summary thinking logs seem to be a good summary of the full thinking logs.

If it's useful, it's useful, enjoy. If you aren't comfortable with that, don't use LLMs. You aren't going to get a mathematical proof of your output, just learn to be comfortable with that, or opt out and be a goat farmer.

[dragonwriter]

> The full thinking logs are also a summary of a thinking process presumably consistent with one necessary to generate the provided answer.

No, they aren't a summary. They are the actual decoding of the sequence of tokens emitted during the the “thinking” stage of response generation.

Just as with, say, a human onner monolog in words vs actual speech, they are a product of the same output process as the non-thinking tokens. They aren’t a translation of the internal process that precedes the output mapped into language, either as a full result or a summary.

[0o_MrPatrick_o0]

I want to measure performance drift over time.

Having access to the reasoning text and output would help with performance measurement.

[solarkraft]

Yeah. The output is magic either way, with or without reasoning.

For daily use I actually like the reasoning summary to be brief/quick to scan.

That said, I understand the author’s desire for the real thing. It just feels better to have that access, especially when Anthropic will give it to you, but encrypted.