Quoting Chollet:

>I have repeatedly said that "can LLM reason?" was the wrong question to ask. Instead the right question is, "can they adapt to novelty?".

https://x.com/fchollet/status/1866348355204595826

Because the output contains evidence of thought processes that have been established as leading to valid solutions to problems.

I have a simple question: Is text a sufficient medium to render a conclusion of reasoning? It can't be sufficient for humans and insufficient for computers - such a position is indefensible.

> Because the output contains evidence of thought processes that have been established as leading to valid solutions to problems.

This sort of claim always just reminds me of Lucky's monologue in Waiting for Godot.

You're not wrong. It's an artifact of rewriting the definition of reason into a sentence that begins with "Because the output ..."

I didn't mean the wording itself; I meant that the claim isn't convincing to me for the same reason that Lucky's speech doesn't demonstrate an intelligent speaker.

Why not get curious instead?

I would say that almost all of what humans do is not the result of reasoning, and that reasoning is an unnatural and learned skill for humans, and most humans aren't good at even very basic reasoning.

Usually we move the goalposts for AI. It takes more guts to move the goalposts for humans. I applaud it.

Do you suppose we can deduce reasoning through the medium of text?