• snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    I agree with the author.

    If these models were truly “reasoning,” they should get better with more compute and clearer instructions.

    The fact that they only work up to a certain point despite increased resources is proof that they are just pattern matching, not reasoning.

    • auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      Performance eventually collapses due to architectural constraints, this mirrors cognitive overload in humans: reasoning isn’t just about adding compute, it requires mechanisms like abstraction, recursion, and memory. The models’ collapse doesn’t prove “only pattern matching”, it highlights that today’s models simulate reasoning in narrow bands, but lack the structure to scale it reliably. That is a limitation of implementation, not a disproof of emergent reasoning.

        • auraithx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Brother you better hope it does because even if emissions dropped to 0 tonight the planet wouldnt stop warming and it wouldn’t stop what’s coming for us.

          • LostXOR@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            22 hours ago

            If emissions dropped to 0 tonight, we would be substantially better off than if we maintain our current trajectory. Doomerism helps nobody.

          • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            If the situation gets dire, it’s likely that the weather will be manipulated. Countries would then have to be convinced not to use this for military purposes.