To wit, if I am doing a high school geometry proof, I come up with a sequence of steps. If the proof is correct, each step follows logically from the one before it.
However, when I go from step 2 to step 3, there are multiple options for step-3 I could have chose. Is it so different from a "most-likely-prediction" an LLM makes? I suppose the difference is humans can filter out logically-incorrect steps, or prune chains-of-steps that won't lead to the actual theorem quicker. But an LLM predictor coupled with a verifier doesn't feel that different from it.
When asked, “If Alice has 3 apples and gives 2 to Bob, how many does she have left?”, the model doesn’t just retrieve a memorized answer—it infers the logical steps (subtracting 2 from 3) to generate the correct result, showcasing reasoning built on the interplay of its scale and architecture rather than explicit data recall.
I don't see how that is "regurgitation", either, if it performs the reasoning steps first, and only then arrives at the answer.