What the hype crowd doesn't get is that for most people, "a tool that randomly breaks" is not useful.
The fact that a tool can break or that the company manufacturing that tool lies about its abilities, are annoying but do not imply that the tool is useless.
I experience LLM "reasoning" failure several times a day, yet I find them useful.
Re:Understanding Reasoning LLMs
by suddenlybananas on Thursday February 06, 2025 @07:00PM
(#42967765)
>They came into this with the assumption that LLMs are just a cheap trick. As a result, they deliberately searched for an example of failure, rather than trying to do an honest assessment of generalization capabilities.
And lo and behold, they still found a glaring failure. You can't fault them for not buying into the hype.
Re:Understanding Reasoning LLMs
by Legend2440 on Thursday February 06, 2025 @07:06PM
(#42967805)
But it is still dishonest to declare reasoning LLMs a scam simply because you searched for a failure mode.
If given a few hundred tries, I bet I could find an example where you reason poorly too. Wikipedia has a whole list of common failure modes of human reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Well, given the success rate is no more than 90% in the best cases. You could probably find a failure in about 10 tries. The only exception is o1-preview. And this is just a simple substitution of parameters.
They came into this with the assumption that LLMs are just a cheap trick. As a result, they deliberately searched for an example of failure, rather than trying to do an honest assessment of generalization capabilities.