For example, papers like this call into question whether or not a LLM can plan:
https://arxiv.org/html/2409.13373v1
This is a basic form of reasoning, to plan out the steps needed to execute something.
https://arxiv.org/html/2409.13373v1
This is a basic form of reasoning, to plan out the steps needed to execute something.
It's like I'm saying a house is made of bricks. You can build a house of any shape out of bricks. But once bricks have been invented you can build houses. The LLM "reasoning" that even existed as early as GPT3.5 was the "brick" with which highly intelligent agents can be built out of, with no further "breakthroughs" being required.
The basic Transformer Architecture was enough and already has the magical ingredient of reasoning. The rest is just a matter of prompt engineering.
The prompt engineering is the real reasoning, provided by the human.
My point is computers already follow algorithms, and algorithms contain reasoning; but the computers are not reasoning themselves. At least, not yet!
I think a "granule" of "reasoning" happens at each inference, and you think there is no reasoning in a single inference. To discuss it further would be a game of whose definition of any given word is correct.