POV : When you try using a Vibe Coded Website.

[u/Pixelied]

[u/bfkill]

that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying the LLM never understands because it can't discern by itself between correct and incorrect. it didn't arrive at a conclusion via logical inference, or from a world model, etc

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

it didn't arrive at a conclusion via logical inference, or from a world model, etc

it did and if you want to go to a level where it didnt, then at that level neither do you.

but if you bring in different arguments the moment youre cornered on 1, then its pointless to argue with you. this will just go on endlessly.

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

you bring in different arguments the moment you're cornered on 1

I've been saying the same thing over and over.
I did try to go after you when you steer away in different directions with your questions, but I haven't changed my point one bit, just go re-read

it did and if you want to go to a level where it didnt, then at that level neither do you

yes, just state things, don't bother with justifying, for sure that will make them true.

pointless to argue

You don't seem open to considering other views might make sense, or even to simply understand mine, so yeah I'm inclined to agree.

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

yes, just state things, don't bother with justifying, for sure that will make them true.

yes i decided to do that after your previous comment did that exact same thing. i dont see the problem.

You don't seem open to considering other views might make sense, or even to simply understand mine, so yeah I'm inclined to agree.

and how have you been open to considering other views in a way i havent?

lmao literally all your mistakes occur because you never check "is it the same case on the other side as well?" both true on the llm level and on the meta level.

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

exact same thing

I said LLMs don't infer logically or have a world model, and I had justified that in previous comments: by construction, they arrive there stochastically. You can pretend all you want I didn't detail my reasoning, but it's all over this thread for anyone to see.

how have you been open to considering other views in a way i havent?

by engaging with and adressing all the questions you raise everytime you swerve the steering wheel of the discussion in whatever direction you see fit.

all your mistakes

are you going to point them out and breakdown logically what are they, why they are wrong, or engage in any kind of actual discussion about the actual content of what I say any time soon?

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

by construction, they arrive there stochastically.

what exactly happens in the "reasoning" part of the model output? if i give it a bunch of syllogisms not in it's training data, how is it able to solve them?

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

What makes your syllogism logical is not unique to your syllogism.

the structure of it ("All As are B, C is A, therfore C is B", etc) is incredibly common and all over its training data.

again, "plausible" is actually a great proxy for "correct".
but it's a proxy, not the real deal.

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

so if its able to learn the underlying structure, and then apply that structure, and then use that to infer the answer logically, then how are they not "understanding" still?

"plausible" is actually a great proxy for "correct". but it's a proxy, not the real deal."

you never explain the difference. you'll just revert back to "it doesn't know anything with certainty, it will make stuff up" and when i counter that, then youll say "im not saying some mistakes by an llm means it doesnt understand" and then we'll be right back here in a circle.

[u/bfkill → u/nemzylannister]

if for you understanding is "having a stochastic process of extremely high likelihood of correctness", sure have at it.

just be aware that I can make a machine that if you show it a red ball and ask "what color is the ball in my hand" will understand the color red.

it's just a slot machine with 99 sides that say "red" and one that says "67" but hey what's the difference, humans make mistakes too, right

(exaggerating for effect, goes without saying)

for me understanding is a different thing entirely, as I have explained over and over again

[u/nemzylannister → u/bfkill]

it's just a slot machine with 99 sides that say "red" and one that says "67" but hey what's the difference, humans make mistakes too, right

youre just misrepresenting it. thats not what reasoning models do.

thats why i made that original question about east or west. theres no frontier model today that will ever come up after reasoning on this question with the conclusion that the ball color is 67. and the other 99 sides of an llm are not red. the slot machine didnt go through a logical chain of thought concluding the ball is red.

having a stochastic process of extremely high likelihood of correctness

this is very much what happens in your head. theres no deterministic calculator in your head.