[davidpapermill]

Can you give me one example that works on Claude right now?

I'm never sure whether this indicates "no reasoning present" or you've just hit an odd behaviour in the AI such that its reasoning fails. For example, you present a problem in a way that's dissimilar to the way problems are presented in its training set. That doesn't mean it's not reasoning, just it can only reason correctly in some circumstances.

[jacobgold]

The models are continually patched with training and post-training. All you have to do is find an area they haven't patched yet, and they'll be just as stupid. I run into deep technical examples every day where they fail in the most basic ways no human ever would.

I'm pretty sure most people building these models would admit they don't operate as human-like intelligences? It's baffling that anyone thinks they are.

[davidpapermill]

Yes I agree, they’re an alien kind of intelligence.

But that doesn’t mean they don’t reason.

[jacobgold]

I get what you're saying but this is kind of a semantic game.

These LLM models/agents absolutely do not reason in the sense that humans do, so you're quietly redefining the word.

You can say of course decide to call them an "alien kind of intelligence" that "reasons" but you could just as reasonably say that calculators are an "alien" kind of intelligence that "reasons" about math differently than us.

[ACCount37]

And what stops what AIs do from being "reasoning"? What's the elusive magic fairy dust of reasoning that humans put into their napkin notes, but AIs neglect to put into their chain of thought scratchpads?

Do you have a RealReasoningBenchmark, perhaps, that can reliably tell apart that fake mass produced token-flavored AI reasoning from the real, organic, 100% natural human reasoning?