[GoLUG] LLMs can't reason

[Kyle Terrien]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 01:18:28PM -0700, Ron wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote on 2025-06-10 13:11:
> 
> > I could easily make the argument that human beings can't reason.
> > Humans use different mental tools than LLMs, but I would say that
> > for questions asked in text form, LLMs' reasoning is well above the
> > reasoning of the median human.
> > 
> > Let's compare the LLM to the guy next door on his afternoon's third
> > can of King Cobra, rathern than comparing it to Isaac Newton or
> > Albert Einstein.
> 
> Well said, cannot agree more.
> 
> 
> The fact that LLMs are asked to do things that are inappropriate for an
> LLM isn't a strike against LLMs, but against those pesky humans.

This is actually a great comparison because it almost highlights a key
difference: the human has a soul.  Inebriation inhibits intellect and
will, but they are still there.  Obviously, the next door neighbor on
his third can of King Cobra made the decision to drink three cans of
King Cobra.  That’s a demonstration of will.  (His intellect probably
told him it would be “fun”, or at least more pleasant than the
alternative, after which the will latched on to “drink up, me
hearties!”)

An AI can definitely output a more coherent response than a drunk, no
doubt.  However, the AI doesn’t “decide” what to say; it just follows
its programming and calculates coefficients in a neural net.  That is
why the AI possesses neither an intellect nor will of its own.  It is
just a soulless automaton.

If you want to view these scenarios in terms of different “mental
tools”, I suppose we can call the former the “wetware” / human soul
method, imperfect but spiritual.  We can call the latter the
mechanical / computational method, more performant in some scenarios
but a cold soulless machine executing its instructions.

> > > > "https://youtu.be/biUfMZ2dts8?si=3DpXpPfn3-htuPHKPJ"
> > > 
> > > I question some of his assumptions: mainly around the 12 minute
> > > mark, he seems to deny or wave away spiritual (supernatural)
> > > reality.
> 
> I didn't watch the video, but since things asserted without evidence can be
> dismissed without evidence, waving away spiritual / supernatural phenomena
> should be the default position, no?
> 
> Burden of proof, etc.

I should have clarified, because I am not talking about ghosts and
things that go bump in the night.  “Supernatural” just means “above
nature”, and “spiritual reality” is just a recognition of the fact
that there are things which are immaterial but nevertheless are still
real (e.g. ideas, language, and love).

Vol 1 Q89 [1] and Vol 3 Q5 [2] give some good explanations contra
materialism.

> If you stood side by side with a horse, both sets of eyes could see
> chalk-marks on a blackboard. But in addition you would see an
> intelligible meaning in the writing which the animal could never
> discern. ... You have conceived ideas which you have committed to
> writing. Ideas are not material things. You cannot saw them up and
> burn them as so many logs of wood.

--Kyle

[1]: https://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=13
[2]: https://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-3.php?t=3

-- 
[*] Kyle Terrien
    Terrenus => from the Earth, to the Cloud
    https://terren.us/

Dilexisti justitiam, et odisti iniquitatem.  -- Psalmus 44:8