Skip to content

Apple just proved AI "reasoning" models like Claude, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini don't actually reason at all. They just memorize patterns really well.

Technology
356 149 44
  • You’re absolutely right that inference in an LLM is a fixed, deterministic function after training, and that the input space is finite due to the discrete token vocabulary and finite context length. So yes, in theory, you could precompute every possible input-output mapping and store them in a giant table. That much is mathematically valid. But where your argument breaks down is in claiming that this makes an LLM equivalent to a conventional Markov chain in function or behavior.

    A Markov chain is not simply defined as “a function from finite context to next-token distribution.” It is defined by a specific type of process where the next state depends on the current state via fixed transition probabilities between discrete states. The model operates over symbolic states with no internal computation. LLMs, even during inference, compute outputs via multi-layered continuous transformations, with attention mixing, learned positional embeddings, and non-linear activations. These mechanisms mean that while the function is fixed, its structure does not resemble a state machine—it resembles a hierarchical pattern recognizer and function approximator.

    Your claim is essentially that “any deterministic function over a finite input space is equivalent to a table.” This is true in a computational sense but misleading in a representational and behavioral sense. If I gave you a function that maps 4096-bit inputs to 50257-dimensional probability vectors and said, “This is equivalent to a transition table,” you could technically agree, but the structure and generative capacity of that function is not Markovian. That function may simulate reasoning, abstraction, and composition. A Markov chain never does.

    You are collapsing implementation equivalence (yes, the function could be stored in a table) with model equivalence (no, it does not behave like a Markov chain). The fact that you could freeze the output behavior into a lookup structure doesn’t change that the lookup structure is derived from a fundamentally different class of computation.

    The training process doesn’t “build a Markov chain.” It builds a function that estimates conditional token probabilities via optimization over a non-Markov architecture. The inference process then applies that function. That makes it a stateless function, yes—but not a Markov chain. Determinism plus finiteness does not imply Markovian behavior.

    you wouldn't be "freezing" anything. Each possible combination of input tokens maps to one output probability distribution. Those values are fixed and they are what they are whether you compute them or not, or when, or how many times.

    Now you can either precompute the whole table (theory), or somehow compute each cell value every time you need it (practice). In either case, the resulting function (table lookup vs matrix multiplications) takes in only the context, and produces a probability distribution. And the mapping they generate is the same for all possible inputs. So they are the same function. A function can be implemented in multiple ways, but the implementation is not the function itself. The only difference between the two in this case is the implementation, or more specifically, whether you precompute a table or not. But the function itself is the same.

    You are somehow saying that your choice of implementation for that function will somehow change the function. Which means that according to you, if you do precompute (or possibly cache, full precomputation is just an infinite cache size) individual mappings it somehow magically makes some magic happen that gains some deep insight. It does not. We have already established that it is the same function.

  • LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

    WTF does the author think reasoning is

  • That depends on your assumption that the left would have anything relevant to gain by embracing AI (whatever that's actually supposed to mean).

    Saw this earlier in the week and thought of you. These short, funny videos are popping up more and more and they're only getting better. They’re sharp, engaging, and they spread like wildfire.

    You strike me as someone who gets it what it means when one side embraces the latest tools while the other rejects them.

    The left is still holed up on Lemmy, clinging to “Fuck AI” groups. But why? Go back to the beginning. Look at the early coverage of AI it was overwhelmingly targeted at left-leaning spaces, full of panic and doom. Compare that to how the right talks about immigration. The headlines are cut and pasted from each other. Same playbook, different topic. The media set out to alienate the left from these tools.

  • Saw this earlier in the week and thought of you. These short, funny videos are popping up more and more and they're only getting better. They’re sharp, engaging, and they spread like wildfire.

    You strike me as someone who gets it what it means when one side embraces the latest tools while the other rejects them.

    The left is still holed up on Lemmy, clinging to “Fuck AI” groups. But why? Go back to the beginning. Look at the early coverage of AI it was overwhelmingly targeted at left-leaning spaces, full of panic and doom. Compare that to how the right talks about immigration. The headlines are cut and pasted from each other. Same playbook, different topic. The media set out to alienate the left from these tools.

    I don't have even the slightest idea what that video is supposed to mean. (Happy cake day tho.)

  • I don't have even the slightest idea what that video is supposed to mean. (Happy cake day tho.)

    Come on, you know what I’m talking about. It’s a channel that started with AI content and is now pivoting to videos about the riots. You can see where this is going. Sooner or later, it’ll expand into targeting protestors and other left-leaning causes.

    It’s a novelty now, but it’s spreading fast, and more channels like it are popping up every day.

    Meanwhile, the left is losing ground. Losing cultural capture. Because as a group, they’re being manipulated into isolating themselves from the very tools and platforms that shape public opinion. Social media. AI. All of it. They're walking away from the battlefield while the other side builds momentum.

  • Come on, you know what I’m talking about. It’s a channel that started with AI content and is now pivoting to videos about the riots. You can see where this is going. Sooner or later, it’ll expand into targeting protestors and other left-leaning causes.

    It’s a novelty now, but it’s spreading fast, and more channels like it are popping up every day.

    Meanwhile, the left is losing ground. Losing cultural capture. Because as a group, they’re being manipulated into isolating themselves from the very tools and platforms that shape public opinion. Social media. AI. All of it. They're walking away from the battlefield while the other side builds momentum.

    you know what I’m talking about

    But I literally don't. Well, I didn't but now I mostly do, since you explained it.

    I get what you're saying with regards to the isolation, this issue has already been raised when many left-wing people started to leave Twitter. But it is opening a whole new can of worms - these profiles that post AI-generated content are largely not managed by ordinary people with their private agendas (sharing neat stuff, political agitation, etc.), but by bots, and are also massively followed and supported by other bot profiles. Much the same on Twitter with its hordes of right-wing troll profiles, and as I'm still somewhat active on reddit I also notice blatant manipluation there as well (my country had elections a few weeks ago and the flood of new profiles less than one week old spamming idiotic propaganda and insults was too obvious). It's not organic online behaviour and it can't really be fought by organic behaviour, especially when the big social media platforms give up the tools to fight it (relaxing their moderation standards, removing fact-checking, etc.). Lemmy and Mastodon etc. are based on the idea(l) that this corporate-controlled area is not the only space where meaningful activity can happen.

    So that's one side of the story, AI is not something happening in a vacuum and that you just have to submit to your own will. The other side of the story, the actual abilities of AI, have already been discussed, we've seen sufficiently that it's not that good at helping people form more solidly developed and truth-based stances. Maybe it could be used to spread the sort of mass-produced manipulative bullshit that is already used by the right, but I can't honestly support such stuff. In this regard, we can doubt whether there is any ground to win for the left (would the left's possible audience actually eat it up), and if yes, whether it is worth it (basing your political appeal on bullshit can bite you in the ass down the line).

    As for the comparison to discourse around immigrants, again I still don't fully understand the point other than on the most surface level (the media is guiding people what to think, duh).

  • You are either vastly overestimating the Language part of an LLM or simplifying human physiology back to the Greek's Four Humours theory.

    No. I'm not. You're nothing more than a protein based machine on a slow burn. You don't even have control over your own decisions. This is a proven fact. You're just an ad hoc justification machine.

  • No. I'm not. You're nothing more than a protein based machine on a slow burn. You don't even have control over your own decisions. This is a proven fact. You're just an ad hoc justification machine.

    How many trillions of neuron firings and chemical reactions are taking place for my machine to produce an output?
    Where are these taking place and how do these regions interact? What are the rules for storing and reshaping memory in response to stimulus? How many bytes of information would it take to describe and simulate all of these systems together?

    The human brain alone has the capacity for about 2.5PB of data. Our sensory systems feed data at a rate of about 10^9^ bits/s. The entire English language, compressed, is about 30MB. I can download and run an LLM with just a few GB. Even the largest context windows are still well under 1GB of data.

    Just because two things both find and reproduce patterns does not mean they are equivalent. Saying language and biological organisms both use "bytes" is just about as useful as saying the entire universe is "bytes"; it doesn't really mean anything.

  • Except that wouldn't explain conscience. There's absolutely no need for conscience or an illusion(*) of conscience. Yet we have it.

    • arguably, conscience can by definition not be an illusion. We either perceive "ourselves" or we don't

    How do you define consciousness?

  • How do you define consciousness?

    It's the thing that the only person who can know for sure you have it is you yourself. If you have to ask, I might have to assume you could be a biological machine.

  • It's the thing that the only person who can know for sure you have it is you yourself. If you have to ask, I might have to assume you could be a biological machine.

    Is that useful for completing tasks?

  • Anker is recalling over 1.1 million power banks due to fire risks

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    209 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    B
    Thanks man! Really appreciate the type up! Have a great weekend!
  • 132 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    V
    Ah, yes. That's correct, sorry I misunderstood you. Yeah that's pretty lame that it doesn't work on desktop. I remember wanting to use that several times.
  • How Social Media Brings Out the Worst in Us

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    120 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    sturgist@lemmy.caS
    Suffering from asthma? 9/10 Doctors recommend menthol cigarettes! Peppermint fresh puts the pep in your step!
  • 116 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    darkdarkhouse@lemmy.sdf.orgD
    The terror will continue until you join us, then we will be nice, I promise!
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • Microsoft wants Windows Update to handle all apps

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    61 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    N
    the package managers for linux that i know of are great because you can easily control everything they do
  • Indian Government orders censoring of accounts on X

    Technology technology
    12
    149 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    M
    Why? Because you can’t sell them?
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    J
    I deleted the snapchat now.