Skip Navigation

Reasoning failures highlighted by Apple research on LLMs

appleinsider.com Reasoning failures highlighted by Apple research on LLMs

A new paper from Apple's artificial intelligence scientists has found that engines based on large language models, such as those from Meta and OpenAI, still lack basic reasoning skills.

Reasoning failures highlighted by Apple research on LLMs
59

You're viewing a single thread.

59 comments
  • Of course they don't, logical reasoning isn't just guessing a word or phrase that comes next.

    As much as some of these tech bros want human thinking and creativity to be reducible to mere pattern recognition, it isn't, and it never will be.

    But the corpos and Capitalists don't care, because their whole worldview is based in the idea that humans are only as valuable as the profitability they generate for a company.

    They don't see any value in poetry, or philosophy, or literature, or historical analysis, or visual arts unless it can be patented, trademarked, copyrighted, and sold to consumers at a good markup.

    As if the only difference between Van Goh's art and an LLM is the size of sample data and efficiency of an algorithm.

    • You don't have to get all philosophical, since the value art is almost by definition debatable.

      These models can't do basic logic. They already fail at this. And that's actually relevant to corpos if you can suddenly convince a chatbot to reduce your bill by 60% because bears don't eat mangos or some other nonsensical statement.

      • It's all connected, the reasons why it can't do basic logical reasoning are the same for why it can't replace human art.

        It's because neither of those activities are mere pattern recognition and statistical inference, which is all LLMs will ever be.

        • LLMs and image generating models are completely different things. Outputting an image doesnt require or benefit from reason and logic (other than making the model "understand" the prompt). Drawing a three headed monkey isnt "logical" and doesnt follow "reason" but that's ok because art isnt about making photorealisitic images.

          AI images could totally be useful as a tool in art. "But a computer made it! It's not art!" It's the same tired argument we heard about electronic music before.

          But the fediverse seems to have such a hate boner for ANYTHING associated with AI (dont get me wrong, there is lots to hate. Mostly with tech-bro grifting...) that people are unable to see that these can be useful complements to human creativity.

          Here's another example... People crying that when an image contains AI generated elements, or maybe a video game contains some AI assets. People fly into a rage and want to dismiss the ENTIRE work and throw it all out. Human art doesnt require 100% human hands to make. Go look at any famous painting by a renaissance master. Did you know a lot of these guys had whole workshops of lackeys filling in background details for them? Are we going to throw out all the raphael and rembrandt paintings because they had assistance from other uncredited people?

          Same with AI. Why cant an artist spend MORE time on important details and let AI draw some happy little trees in the background?

          • I think you're reading too deep into what I was saying. Perhaps I wasn't being clear, my bad if so.

            I'm not against AI tools to assist people's work. Using them for grammar/spellcheck, code completion and automated testing, artwork help for filling in repetitive background details/textures, automatically removing background details in pictures like dumpsters or people photo bombing, etc.

            What I am against is the grifting, the near religious devotion by tech bros to AI replacing humans in all areas of life, and the fact that the groups and companies controlling almost all of the development of this tech are multi-billion/trillion dollar corpos that don't make all aspects of their tech open source and are 100% motivated by profit.

    • I'm just thinking - 12 years ago there was a lot of talk of politicians and big corpo chiefs being replaceable with a shell script. As both a joke and an argument in favor of something requiring change.

      One can say it was saying that these people are not needed - engineers can build their replacements.

      In some sense AI is politicians and big bosses trying to build a replacement for engineers, using means available to these people.

      Maybe they noticed, got pissed and are trying to enact revenge. Sort of a domain area war.

    • I keep thinking of the anticapitalist manifesto that a spinoff team from the disco elysium developers dropped, and this part in particular stands out to me and helps crystallize exactly why I don't like AI art:

      All art is communication — dialogue across time, space and thought. In its rawest, it is one mind’s ability to provoke emotion in another. Large language models — simulacra, cold comfort, real-doll pocket-pussy, cyberspace freezer of an abandoned IM-chat — which are today passed off for “artificial intelligence”, will never be able to offer a dialogue with the vision of another human being.

      Machine-generated works will never satisfy or substitute the human desire for art, as our desire for art is in its core a desire for communication with another, with a talent who speaks to us across worlds and ages to remind us of our all-encompassing human universality. There is no one to connect to in a large language model. The phone line is open but there’s no one on the other side.

You've viewed 59 comments.