We don't usually discuss how people choose to ground their ontological beliefs, but why not? Why did you choose to ground "reasoning" in the way you do? If you didn't choose, why not?
> Reasoning is a social construct
The word "reasoning" is a "social construct," as all words are. Reasoning itself is not. Our brains do things. Reasoning is one of them. The word "reasoning" is one of the labels, the approximations, that we use when we name that activity.
Changing the label doesn't change the fact that there exists something that we're naming.
The person you're answering is asking whether reasoning -- that thing that really, actually exists -- is one of the activities LLMs perform. It's a valid question.
And the answer is that LLMs do not reason. Or if they do, we have no evidence of it or way of verifying that we actually understand qua reasoning the activity the LLM is performing (which is to say nothing of the fact that reasoning requires a reasoner). Anyone who says that LLMs reason is mistaking special effects/simulation for reality and, in essence, believes that whenever they see a picture of a dog on their computer screens, there must be a real, actual dog somewhere in the computer, too.
Deleuze and Guattari's idea of striation and smooth space is a more honest approach to how we describe and interact with the world.
Let's say that here "I" is taken as synonym of "the present reflective attention".
Can the question "did I chose to ground reasoning?" in such a context be attached to a meaningful interpretation? And if so, is the answer reachable by the means available to "I"? Can "I" transcend "my" beliefs through contemplation of "my" own affabulations?
This is generally regarded by engineer-types as false, but societal taboos and power structures can be revealed by noting what speech provokes the strongest reactions.
I'm not sure what links you try to show and what you try to argue here though.
Ok I'll bite. Who is the marginalized Other?
This will appear as common sense or naturally true if you're inside the LLMs-cant-reason ideology.
That doesn't mean that a silicon based reasoning entity is an ontological impossibility. But if it is to become a reality, it's not necessarily through LLM that such an entity will be spawn.
Lot of game playing going on here to center on a victim narrative.
I don't know whether it's past the mark enough to be considered a "taboo" yet, but the other comment replying to him is certainly treating it as taboo. I would note that many, many other people particularly in academia/important society act the same way as the other commenter. I'd also note I have felt strong social pressure to not hold the beliefs I hold about LLM's capacity for reasoning, including actually losing meaningful social status.
Probably worth remembering that different subcultures have different taboos.
That is not how oppression and power work. That's not how discussion works. That not how Foucault's analysis of power works.
It's examining published news / research / whatever (input), making statistical predictions, and then comparing (playing) it against other predictions to fine-tune the result