this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
89 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

4336 readers
481 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Researchers convinced ChatGPT to do things it normally wouldn’t with basic psychology.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nymnympseudonym@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)

I don't think you have read the relevant papers or are familiar with LRM (Large Reasoning Models). Which is basically all model AIs (GPT5, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek). It's new in the last ~18-24 months

In a nutshell, they include logical thinking and correct chains of logical thought to the LLM training data, along with tasks like recognizing dogs and predicting next words.

So yes, they are literally trained to reason the exact same way they are trained to write stories and summarize books.

You can say "it doesn't really reason" but it has exactly the same value as the assertion "it doesn't really write stories or summarize books" ... maybe not, but there will be a story or a summary (or a logical chain of thought) in front of you if you ask for one.

[–] lakemalcom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

I will 100% admit to not reading papers and keeping up to date. I went ahead and spent about 30m looking up various explanations and summaries of LRMs. Ok, so you take an LLM and tell it to break the problem down first. It's still not reasoning. It's running a simulation of a natural language conversation, and giving you the center of mass of the statistical distribution for the intermediate steps. Does this kinda sorta replicate the sounds a human makes? Absolutely. But it's irresponsible and unethical to make any claims that this is a human like entity you can chat with, or that it is doing any reasoning.

When I get some time I'll check this paper out: https://ml-site.cdn-apple.com/papers/the-illusion-of-thinking.pdf

[–] nymnympseudonym@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

It’s still not reasoning. It’s running a simulation

As Daniel Dennett once asked: "What is the difference between a simulated song, and a real song?"

You say it's not reasoning, but I've seen it debug and fix a core dump

[–] lakemalcom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A couple of things:

  • we are talking about chat bots talking to people in this post, and how you can steer the simulated conversation towards whatever you want
  • it did not debug anything, a human debugged something and wrote about it. Then that human input and a ton of others were mapped into a huge probability map, and some computer simulated what people talking about this would most likely say. Is it useful? Sure, maybe. Why didn't you debug it yourself?
[–] nymnympseudonym@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

chat bots

Fair, we need to get terms straight; this is new and unstable territory. Let's say, LLMs specifically.

it did not debug anything, a human debugged something and wrote about it. Then that human input and a ton of others were mapped into a huge probability map, and some computer simulated what people talking about this would most likely say

Can you explain how that is different from what a human does? I read a lot about debugging, went to classes, worked examples...

Why didn’t you debug it yourself?

In my case this is enterprise software, many products and millions of lines of code. My test and bug-fixing teams are begging for automation. Bug fixing at scale

[–] lakemalcom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ok, that's easy. If I make an LRM model of your dead grandma, is that your grandma? Why not? What's different?

Your bug fixing teams are begging for automation. That tells me you have an unsustainable setup. You are providing a bug fix suggestion tool, I don't see how that fixes your problem. Seems like you need better coding practices and possibly more people.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)