A tale as old as time: "It is illustrated by the success of chess computers. In the 60s, it was said that computers will never beat people at chess, because that requires intelligence and computers aren't capable of intelligent thought.
When computers regularly started winning matches in the 80s, it was claimed that playing chess wasn't a test of real intelligence because computers could do it."
>Whether that specific question was in the training corpus or not, there are enough words in the sentence to suggest a positive association, including, significantly, "worthwhile." That alone possibly serves to narrow the answers down to A or B, with a preference for B, because it's more likely that "worthwhile" and "letter to x mother" are associated with "enamored" in general English-language text.
Yes, this is called reasoning so in other words the LLM is reasoning about language.
>Look, the whole point of these models is that its not easy or even possible to trace the path any given input takes on its way to output, but we know the principles used in development, so I think it's rather more of a burden to explain how the clearly-explained principles in LLMs result in something other than the obvious.
The inscrutability of the Matrices tells you nothing about it's reasoning ability. Given the correct prompt the LLM will also provide you with a step by step solution to the question it answered. There are also explicit reasoning prompts that these models are able to deal with.
I think it's pretty simple, if these questions are not explicitly in the training data it cannot have answered them correctly at such a high success rate with anything other than reasoning. You haven't given any alternative answer to how it does this either.