o1 wouldn't exist without the combined compute of every mind that led to the training data they used in the first place. How many h100 equivalents are the rolling continuum of all of human history?
Human reasoning, as it exists today, is the result of tens of thousands of years of intuition slowly distilled down to efficient abstract concepts like "numbers", "zero", "angles", "cause", "effect", "energy", "true", "false", ...
I don't know what reasoning from scratch would look like without training on examples from other reasoning beings. As human children do.
Emergent tool use from multi-agent interaction is a good example - https://openai.com/index/emergent-tool-use/
In your particular case the prompt would look something like: <pubmed dump> what are the plants that aren't poisonous to most people?
A general reasoner would recover language and relevant world model from pubmed dump. And then would proceed to reason about it, to perform the task.
It doesn't look like a particularly efficient process.
In an axiomatic system, those solutions are checkable, but how discoverable are they when your search space starts from infinity? How much do you lose by disregarding the gritty reality and foam of human experience? It provides inspirational texture that helps mathematicians in the search at least.
Reality is a massive corpus of cause and effect that can be modeled mathematically. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you even want to be able to math in a vacuum. Maybe there is a self optimization spider that can crawl up the axioms and solve all of math. I think you'll find that you can generate new math infinitely, and reality grounds it and provides the gravity to direct efforts towards things that are useful, meaningful and interesting to us.
At the end of the day, all theory must be empirically verified, and contextually useful reasoning simply cannot develop in a vacuum.
On the contrary, when reasoning about the real world, one must reason starting from assumptions that are uncertain (at best) or even "clearly wrong but still probably useful for this particular question" (at worst). Any long and logic-heavy proof would make the results highly dubious.
Unless the brain is using physics that we don’t understand or can’t replicate, it seems that, at least theoretically, there should be a way to model what it’s doing with silicon and code.
States like inspiration and creativity seem to correlate in an interesting way with ‘temperature’, ‘top p’, and other LLM inputs. By turning up the randomness and accepting a wider range of output, you get more nonsense, but you also potentially get more novel insights and connections. Human creativity seems to work in a somewhat similar way.
To your point, experience is the training. Without language/data to represent human experience and knowledge to train a model, how would you give it 'experience'?
They were pre-designed to learn what they always learn. Their minds structured to readily make the same connections as puppies, that dogs have always needed to survive.
Not for real reasoning, which by its nature, does not have a limit.
Its easy to train the same things to a degree, but its amazing to watch different dogs individually learn and reason through things completely differently, even within a breed or even a litter.
Reasoning ability is always limited by the capacity of the thinker to frame the concepts and interactions. Its always limited by definition, we only push that limit farther than other species, and AGI may eventually push it past our abilities.
- humans experience reality at a slower pace than AI could theoretically experience a simulated reality
- humans have to transfer knowledge to the next generation every 80 years (in a manner that's very lossy), and around half of each human lifespan is spent learning things that the previous generation already knew
Reasoning could very well have originally been an emergent property of a group of beings.
The animal kingdom is full of examples of groups being more intelligent than individuals, including in human animals as of today.
It’s entirely possible that reasoning emerged as a property of a group before it emerged in any individual first.
What I wonder instead is whether reasoning is a property that is either there or not there, with a sharp boundary of existence.
Do this continually through generations until you arrive at modern society.
First you must invent the universe.
That was the easy part though, figuring out how to handle all the unintended side effects it generated is still an ongoing process. Please sit and relax while we are solving the few incidentals events occurring here and there, rest assured we are putting our best effort to their resolution.
To quote DeepSeek directly:
> DeepSeek-R1-Zero, a model trained via large-scale reinforcement learning (RL) without supervised fine-tuning (SFT) as a preliminary step, demonstrated remarkable performance on reasoning. With RL, DeepSeek-R1-Zero naturally emerged with numerous powerful and interesting reasoning behaviors. However, DeepSeek-R1-Zero encounters challenges such as endless repetition, poor readability, and language mixing. To address these issues and further enhance reasoning performance, we introduce DeepSeek-R1, which incorporates cold-start data before RL.
On the other hand, my take on it, the ability to do reasoning in a long context is a general capability. And my guess is that it can be bootstrapped from scratch, without having to do training on all of the internet or having to distill models trained on the internet.
But we already know that is the case: the Deepseek v3 paper says it was posttrained partly with an internal version of R1:
> Reasoning Data. For reasoning-related datasets, including those focused on mathematics, code competition problems, and logic puzzles, we generate the data by leveraging an internal DeepSeek-R1 model. Specifically, while the R1-generated data demonstrates strong accuracy, it suffers from issues such as overthinking, poor formatting, and excessive length. Our objective is to balance the high accuracy of R1-generated reasoning data and the clarity and conciseness of regularly formatted reasoning data.
And deepseekmath did a repeated cycle of this kind of thing mixing in 10% of old previously seen data with new generated data from last gen in a continuous bootstrap.
This manifold is constructed via learning a decontextualized pattern space on a given set of inputs. Given the inherent probabilistic nature of sampling, true reasoning is expressed in terms of probabilities, not axioms. It may be possible to discover axioms by locating fixed points or attractors on the manifold, but ultimately you're looking at a probabilistic manifold constructed from your input set.
But I don't think you can untie this "reasoning" from your input data. It's possible you will find "meta-reasoning", or similar structures found in any sufficiently advanced reasoning manifold, but these highly decontextualized structures might be entirely useless without proper recontextualization, necessitating that a reasoning manifold is trained on input whose patterns follow learnable underlying rules, if the manifold is to be useful for processing input of that kind.
Decontextualization is learning, decomposing aspects of an input into context-agnostic relationships. But recontextualization is the other half of that, knowing how to take highly abstract, sometimes inexpressible, context-agnostic relationships and transform them into useful analysis in novel domains.
This doesn't mean a well-trained model can't reason about input it hasn't encountered before, just that the input needs to be in some way causally connected to the same laws which governed the input the manifold was trained on.
I'm sure we could create a fully generalized reasoning manifold which could handle anything, but I don't see how we possibly get that without first considering and encountering all possible inputs. But these inputs still have to have some form of constraint governed by laws that must be learned through sampling, otherwise you'd just be training on effectively random data.
The other commenter who suggested simply generating all possible sentences and training on internal consistency should probably consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that internal consistency isn't enough to accurately model and interpret the universe. One could construct a thought experiment about an isolated brain in a jar with effectively unlimited neuronal connections, but no sensory connection to the outside world. It's possible, with enough connections, that the likelihood of the brain conceiving of true events it hasn't actually encountered does increase meaningfully. But the brain still has nothing to validate against, and can't simply assume that because something is internally logically consistent, that it must exist or have existed.