You had time to respond though, what a silly (and elitist rebuttal).
OP is arguing from a philosophical point of view that GPT-4 can not reason, i.e. is just repeating/parroting on trained logical arguments.
You argue by authority that yes, it actually does reason, which is a far (far) bolder claim than the one OP is making.
What a dumb take. It probably takes seconds to write a simple comment and far longer to read a paper.
>You argue by authority that yes, it actually does reason, which is a far (far) bolder claim than the one OP is making.
He linked a paper you can read yourself. How is this arguing from authority?
Unfortunately that is true, it doesn't mean you have to.
The paper he linked to doesn't rebut OP, they show that prompting GPT-4 to provide reasoning makes it provide better answers. That is a different statement than "GPT-4 is actually reasoning", and can do so consistently on novel problems.