> all LLM output is based on likelihood of one word coming after the next word based on the prompt.
Right but it has to reason about what that next word should be. It has to model the problem and then consider ways to approach it.
Right but it has to reason about what that next word should be. It has to model the problem and then consider ways to approach it.
When an LLM is "reasoning" it's just feeding its own output back into itself and giving it another go.
And by the way, I don't think it's surprising that so many people are being unreasonable on this issue, there is a lot at stake and it's implications are transformative.
This is a good example of being confidently misinformed.
The best move is always a result of calculation. And the calculation can always go deeper or run on a stronger engine.
Even if it is, this sounds like "this submarine doesn't actually swim" reasoning.