AbuTahir@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-23 hours agoApple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. They just memorize patterns really well.archive.isexternal-linkmessage-square313fedilinkarrow-up1805arrow-down136file-text
arrow-up1769arrow-down1external-linkApple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. They just memorize patterns really well.archive.isAbuTahir@lemm.ee to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-23 hours agomessage-square313fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down1·5 hours agoSure. We weren’t discussing if AI creates value or not. If you ask a different question then you get a different answer.
minus-squareMangoCats@feddit.itlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·4 hours agoWell - if you want to devolve into argument, you can argue all day long about “what is reasoning?”
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down1·edit-22 hours agoYou were starting a new argument. Let’s stay on topic. The paper implies “Reasoning” is application of logic. It shows that LRMs are great at copying logic but can’t follow simple instructions that haven’t been seen before.
minus-squaretechnocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-23 hours agoThis would be a much better paper if it addressed that question in an honest way. Instead they just parrot the misleading terminology that they’re supposedly debunking. How dat collegial boys club undermines science…
Sure. We weren’t discussing if AI creates value or not. If you ask a different question then you get a different answer.
Well - if you want to devolve into argument, you can argue all day long about “what is reasoning?”
You were starting a new argument. Let’s stay on topic.
The paper implies “Reasoning” is application of logic. It shows that LRMs are great at copying logic but can’t follow simple instructions that haven’t been seen before.
This would be a much better paper if it addressed that question in an honest way.
Instead they just parrot the misleading terminology that they’re supposedly debunking.
How dat collegial boys club undermines science…