Plants don’t have “a will”.
Says you. They certainly have a will to reproduce, get sunlight, get water.
You need sentience and a subjective experience of existence for that.
Ok. So anything that doesn’t have a subjective experience of existence is morally fine to eat.
Under your rules we can morally eat people in comas.
To take this line if thought to the extreme, I see the same will to live in peace in a carrot.
I don’t know why you’re playing semantic games
I’m trying to highlight the goal of this paper.
This is a knock them down paper by Apple justifying (to their shareholders) their non investment in LLMs. It is not a build them up paper trying for meaningful change and to create a better AI.
Other way around. The claimed meaningful change (reasoning) has not occurred.
This paper does provide a solid proof by counterexample of reasoning not occuring (following an algorithm) when it should.
The paper doesn’t need to prove that reasoning never has or will occur. It’s only demonstrates that current claims of AI reasoning are overhyped.
The architecture of these LRMs may make monkeys fly out of my butt. It hasn’t been proven that the architecture doesn’t allow it.
You are asking to prove a negative. The onus is to show that the architecture can reason. Not to prove that it can’t.
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.
Sure. We weren’t discussing if AI creates value or not. If you ask a different question then you get a different answer.
Not “This particular model”. Frontier LRMs s OpenAI’s o1/o3,DeepSeek-R, Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, and Gemini Thinking.
The paper shows that Large Reasoning Models as defined today cannot interpret instructions. Their architecture does not allow it.
A well trained model should consider both types of lime. Failure is likely down to temperature and other model settings. This is not a measure of intelligence.
do we know that they don’t and are incapable of reasoning.
“even when we provide the algorithm in the prompt—so that the model only needs to execute the prescribed steps—performance does not improve”
When given explicit instructions to follow models failed because they had not seen similar instructions before.
This paper shows that there is no reasoning in LLMs at all, just extended pattern matching.
If I remember my history correctly, the Korean shopkeepers are the real 2A Kings.
I wish primer had an 20% extra budget so they could make the last act make sense. It just needed a few more explanatory scenes.
Time crimes (Spanish: Los cronocrímenes) is my absolute favourite in the genre.
Oh yes. Jumanji 2 (3?) was mainly unoriginal callbacks to the previous movie.
The first step off the boat sets the pace.
I loved the 5 questions.
WWF wrestler discovers magic sunglasses and yuppie aliens. It’s a John Carpenter film and has one of the longest fist fights.
The 5 eyes countries are not allowed to spy on their own citizens, but they can freely share data.
Isn’t there an obvious loophole here.
If people bring up vegetarianism in an empathy debate then no-one can stop me empathising with the carrot.