Summarize the given content.




Skip to main content
Can Humans Truly Reason? : r/singularity

    


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  




  
  
  
  
  
  



  
  
  
  



  
  
  
  















  
Advertise on Reddit
Create
Create post
Go to singularity
r/singularity
•
14 hr. ago
nightman
Can Humans Truly Reason?
Discussion
r/singularity - Can Humans Truly Reason?
Sort by:
u/Key_End_1715 avatar
Key_End_1715
•
14h ago
•

Uno reverse card. Maybe we were the agi all along and chatgpt created us.
u/RRY1946-2019 avatar
RRY1946-2019
•
13h ago
•
Transformers background character.

Oh dear, I read that in a Transformers fanfic once.
ObiWanCanownme
•
14h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

This whole debate is so dumb to me.

"They can't reason, they just parrot what's in the dataset."

Look, at the end of the day the world is just a dataset. If you describe it accurately, you're using good reasoning; if not, you're wrong. Reasoning is literally just a set of heuristics we have developed and utilize to describe the world. I challenge anyone to come up with a simple definition of reasoning that doesn't basically boil down to "heuristics about the physical world." I'm quite confident it cannot be done.

We want to grow the dataset and we want to grow AI's ability to parrot the dataset in new and innovative ways. When this happens, we will learn new things about the dataset (i.e. the world), by virtue of new heuristics that AI develops. That's what reasoning is.
u/ivanmf avatar
ivanmf
•
13h ago
•

Everyone's minds are just their model of reality, based on experience AND reinforcement learning. We are all navigating noetic latent spaces.
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
13h ago
•

Reasoning has a fully self-contained definition that comes from mathematics and formal logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Formal_logic

It doesn't cover everything you would want to do in the world as a human being, so in that sense I agree with you, but even if you constrain yourself to formal logic then LLMs are conspicuously not good at it. They can't apply rules consistently and hallucinate often.

This is a bit weird if you consider that computers themselves, prior to AI, were already very good at formal logic. It seems that learning and getting very good at language, which is ambiguous and fuzzy, is not a direct pathway to also being good at logic. Two different things.
ObiWanCanownme
•
12h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

I don't think it's weird at all. One could say it's not just that computers are good at formal logic it's that they *are* formal logic. You can think of a logic gate as basically a syllogism. So a computer is just a bunch of transistors which are the physical embodiments of chained syllogisms/if-then propositions. We made them to do that specifically because it's something we're not naturally super good at. Chaining syllogisms/ if-then propositions is hard for us and taxes our working memory, and so people rely on strategies like writing things down and diagramming.

LLMs are clearly doing something different from computers, much more like people.

My three-year old daughter is pretty bright. She has memorized entire children's books that I've read her. She has a large vocabulary and can count to 100. But she's incapable of doing most basic addition. Because math is actually not a very useful or easy heuristic (relatively speaking). If math were an important and basic heuristic, all mammals would be decent at math. But most mammals cannot do math, because math is not actually all that useful compared to heuristics like "smell food; go to food" or "see predator; run from predator." By the same token, every known human culture has language, music, dance, ritual, etc., but not all of them have math or even numbers. I think math and logic are in the same category; they're not that obvious (relatively speaking) and not that useful (relatively speaking). We spend many hours being taught math and other reasoning based disciplines precisely because it is not something we would just pick up automatically.

So I find it sort of nonsurprising that a convolutional neural net would need lots of training to master basic reasoning, since humans also need lots of training to do so.
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
12h ago
•

There is clearly a mismatch though. If you talked to someone who was as eloquent and knowledgable as a modern LLM but they couldn't play tic tac toe because it was just beyond their capabilities for some reason you would be very surprised.
ObiWanCanownme
•
11h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

There is also obviously a mismatch, you're right. But the character and quality of data humans get is pretty different from what LLMs are trained on. I think this example is partly a function of the text-only interface. If you tried to play tic-tac-toe with a human who wasn't allowed to see the board and was relying on verbal descriptions of where the Xs and Os are, I bet most people would struggle at least a little.

In text-native tasks like programming and math, LLMs are getting quite good quite fast. As we get more and better audiovisual data incorporated into LLMs (and as we give LLMs the ability to use image and video generation for purposes of working memory / in-context learning), I bet problems like tic-tac-toe will be solved.
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
11h ago
•

I'm not actually sure that they are getting better at programming and math that quickly. I think they are getting more training data and larger representations (be that # of parameters or context length) that allow them to remember more patterns and apply them more consistently, but in my experience they are not getting that much better at novel tasks.

I use LLMs a lot, like every day. And they are absolutely very helpful at doing well-established tasks that are out there in the training data but would just be annoying and take me time. However, for non-trivial tasks I have a near zero success rate using any model, 4o, o1, Claude 3.5, etc.

When GPT-4 came out I, like everyone, was interested in what it could and couldn't do. I made a list of things that I asked it to do where it fell on its face. These are not "gotchas" like the stupid strawberry thing, but tasks that I do every day and was hoping one day it would be able to do for me. They also aren't open ended things like, "solve this unsolved problem" or "write a paper about this," they are concrete and self-contained things, entirely text-based, mostly programming related, that would take me like 30 minutes. You know, exactly what LLMs are supposed to be good at.

Whenever a new model comes out I try them out to see if it can do them. So far there has been ZERO progress since GPT-4. Even o1 still can't do anything (for me at least) that GPT-4 couldn't do.
ObiWanCanownme
•
11h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

Can you give me some examples of coding problems you're talking about? I don't use LLMs for coding specifically very often, but in my experience, they continue to get better at math and reasoning tasks at a fairly brisk pace.
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
11h ago
• Edited 11h ago •

One that is crazy to me is if you ask it to write a qiskit program that demonstrates a Bell inequality violation it just can’t do it. Even if you tell it exactly what it did wrong it never gets it right. That might sound weird if you aren’t aware of the topic but it is something I ask all my undergraduate students to do as a homework and they all can do it no problem. It’s like 20 lines of code.

It also isn’t even remotely obscure. You can find examples of it on IBMs website, GitHub, etc. Possibly it is because it is a combination of non-trivial math and programming at the same time. Like I said, GPT-4 got just as close to a solution as o1 does today. No improvement.
ObiWanCanownme
•
9h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

I guess I don't know exactly why o1 can't do this (particularly since there are examples online). I will say o1 also continues to fail miserably at geometry problems like optimal packing where o1 frequently chooses obviously incorrect solutions. My general intuition is that if I find myself trying to visualize a problem in my head in order to solve it, it's a problem I expect most LLMs to struggle with.

But to the broader point, I don't think you can deny progress is happening just because there's a set of problems that GPT-4 couldn't do and o1 also can't do. Because by the same token, there is a large set of problems that GPT-4 couldn't do but o1 can do.
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
9h ago
•

There is probably something to that. Quantum computing is done over the Bloch sphere so it is very geometric in nature, and what it usually messes up is what angles to rotate to make it work.
u/redpoetsociety avatar
redpoetsociety
•
11h ago
•

Any book recommendations from you, on the topic of AI?
ObiWanCanownme
•
11h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein as a general primer on epistemology, which is *quite* relevant to AI development.

Human Compatible by Stuart Russell as a general primer on AI risk.

The Coming Wave by Mustafa Suleyman on considerations for the future evolution of AI.

The Alignment Problem by Brian Christian as a good summary touching on all of the above three topics.

For up-to-date technical items, everything is changing so fast that podcasts are perhaps and whitepapers best. Lex Fridman and Dwarkesh Patel have some good interviews. Andrej Karpathy has a TON of really, really useful interviews and videos online too. Anthropic's research on mechanistic interpretability is pretty informative.

There are also obviously a lot of really good papers out there on Arxiv.

EDIT: Also I should add Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari. I'm only partway through this one, but I can tell already it's an important read.
u/redpoetsociety avatar
redpoetsociety
•
4h ago
•

Thank you! I’m gonna grab the first two off Amazon.
FarrisAT
•
9h ago
•

Arguments from evolution are stupid. Humans evolved into their current form during the stone age. But in evolutionary terms, we are extremely similar to our monkey ancestors.
riceandcashews
•
13h ago
•
There is no Hard Problem of Consciousness

Formal logic isn't really the thing people are referring to when they say 'LLMs can reason' or not. Probably a more clear term would be 'learning, understanding and planning'
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
13h ago
•

Lots of people are referring to that. All of mathematics is reducible to formal logic so any time you are testing a LLMs ability to, for instance, solve math or coding problems (that is something A LOT of people are doing) you are really talking about formal logic.
riceandcashews
•
13h ago
•
There is no Hard Problem of Consciousness

Sure - but that becomes a kind of narrow intelligence, not the generalized intelligence that we are talking about here.

We basically don't have anything that can do 'learning, understanding, and planning' right now viably remotely close to the way humans or even animals can. There really isn't even a clear sense of how to solve that problem in the ML space atm.
u/Cryptizard avatar
Cryptizard
•
13h ago
•

I totally agree with you that we don't have that. But I don't agree that they are completely different things. I think a model that was good at formal logic would also (when combined with the massive amount of information about the world that it has from training data) inherently be good at planning and "understanding" (that is a quite ill-defined term unfortunately).
FarrisAT
•
9h ago
•

Formal Logic is exactly what we are referring to. Not being able to play tic tac toe is a very easy and very extreme case of LLMs lacking logic or reasoning.
riceandcashews
•
9h ago
•
There is no Hard Problem of Consciousness

children can play tic tac toe but have no understanding of formal logic at all
R33v3n
•
10h ago
•
▪️Tech-Priest | AGI 2026

    Reasoning is literally just a set of heuristics we have developed and utilize to describe the world. I challenge anyone to come up with a simple definition of reasoning that doesn't basically boil down to "heuristics about the physical world." I'm quite confident it cannot be done.

And when these heuristics don't generalize, it's basically Hume's Problem of Induction. Possibly getting fucked over a little bit by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, too. ;) I wonder if the secret is going to be that once AI is agentic, it can do Bayesian Inference, witness new data, even run its own experiments, and update its beliefs.

Right now AI models are static—they don’t learn or update unless retrained with new data. I think they need to be more plastic. The same way life needs the capacity to evolve to meet reality halfway, leads me to believe synthetic life needs the capacity to evolve too. Bridge the gap between rigid, static heuristics and more flexible, robust reasoning. That’s how we get from mere “pattern recognition” to something that resembles a dynamic, living system. We’re not quite there yet. But we'll be. Nature shows it's doable.
ApexFungi
•
11h ago
•

I can agree that what generative AI models do is reasoning, but why do they all exhibit the same issues. Issues like hallucinations and answers that are complete nonsense sometimes. Or when you use a trap question from things they have clearly been trained on but the question is slightly altered, they often fumble. If this isn't caused by lack of reasoning what is it then? Why do they all suffer from the same problems?
FarrisAT
•
9h ago
•

The world is not just a dataset.

Some data is unknown. Some data is yet to be created. Schrodinger's Cat shows that you cannot predict the future unless all outcomes already have been pre-determined.
u/Feynmanprinciple avatar
Feynmanprinciple
•
3h ago
•

We have these beautiful narratives about how wonderful, creative and smart human beings are. Nobody can reason as well as we do, bigly. I reasoned the other day, I said to wife Janet, "Mary what do we do best out of all of the species in the solar system" and she said to me "reasoning babe" and from Platopus to Aristurtle we got the logic, literally nobody has made mistakes, nobody. And that's why AI isn't as smart as us
DepartmentDapper9823
•
12h ago
•

I'm glad that such wise comments and posts are appearing more often on this subreddit. Just a few months ago, it was common practice here to mystify the functioning of the brain.
u/Glxblt76 avatar
Glxblt76
•
12h ago
•

Humans need only a few pictures of cats to easily recognize a cat.

AIs need hundreds of thousands.

This is still a major, unsolved problem.
u/SoylentRox avatar
SoylentRox
•
12h ago
•

Kinda, efficient zero cuts that down, putting the target image in context helps also.  But keep in mind engineering is also about utilizing the resources you have.  Humans won't live long enough to see millions of examples or train for millions of years.  AI can.  So if the end product is any measurable amount better by using a less data efficient method it's what we should use. 

 See how aircraft are way less fuel efficient than birds, but fuel is relatively cheap compared to the risk a bird has to take to obtain calories.

In return aircraft are also much faster and can carry more weight in a smaller machine relative to its takeoff weight, and thus fit in airports.  (You could save a ton of fuel with longer wingspan and flying slower - this is what the solar aircraft that flew around the world did.  But it had an impractical wingspan and very little weight)
trolledwolf
•
10h ago
•

using images is a fundamentally unfair meter of comparisons. We humans live in a visual world, we base our understanding of the world on images. AIs exist in a world of variables and numbers, what they see in a picture is not the abstraction that we see, they see numerical values corresponding to colors, and try to find a pattern between each pixel to try and extrapolate what that image is, so of course they need millions of examples.

Try and do the same with a human. Give him an excel sheet where each cell contains the numerical identifier of a color, and ask the human to understand what the "image" is depicting. The human is going to have MUCH more trouble than the AI, because our brains aren't programmed to process numbers and values, we suck at it. That doesn't make us any less capable of reasoning.
DepartmentDapper9823
•
12h ago
•

When a child sees a cat for the first time, he sees a lot of “images” of cats from different angles. The human visual system processes about 140 million polygons per second. This is enough for the brain’s neural networks to form a high-quality visual model of the cat in a short time.
u/throwaway_didiloseit avatar
throwaway_didiloseit
•
11h ago
•

The human visual system does not work in polygons, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
u/StormyInferno avatar
StormyInferno
•
11h ago
•

He's essentially saying you'd need that many polygons to capture digitally, the data we capture with our eyeballs.

We are constantly getting fed new data via our eyeballs every microsecond, or however fast our eyeballs transmit data to our brain.

X pictures per second every single time a person looks at a cat, or animal, etc...
EndTimer
•
3h ago
•

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The human eye doesn't have enough angular resolution to see 140 million of anything per second.

Our eyes don't have equal angular resolution throughout. The fovea -- by far the most sensitive part of the retina -- has an angular resolution of 0.02 degrees (roughly one arcminute), and it only accounts for a conical 2º field of view for each eye. Our two foveas demand a collective 50% of our visual cortex. Generously (or in my case, lazily) assuming that the foveas' field of view is a square-edged frustum, not conical, and ignoring overlapping binocular vision, we've got 4x4 degrees @ 0.02 angular resolution, for a total of ~40,000 individual perceptible elements within our most sensitive field of view.

Again, employing lazy assumption, since the foveas tax 50% of our visual cortex, assume it handles double the total "pixels", or 80,000.

The USAF apparently (I'm going off a reddit post) found that fighter pilots can perceive 400 frames per second. So putting all of that together, your bandwidth would be 32 million "polygons" per second, if every polygon were the 1 arcminute, and you were a fighter pilot, and your foveas had rectangular frustums.

Personally, I doubt the human visual system is putting away those numbers unless something else is meant.
u/Glxblt76 avatar
Glxblt76
•
12h ago
•

A kid doesn't need that. You show them a few pictures, it's enough to recognize cats.
DepartmentDapper9823
•
12h ago
•

Only because a child can extrapolate his a priori understanding of animals to recognize new (for him) species of animals. Without a priori knowledge, a child will not be able to reliably recognize a cat if he has previously only seen it in a few pictures. Forming high-quality models of objects requires data. The brain is a statistical organ; it has no magical powers.
u/Glxblt76 avatar
Glxblt76
•
11h ago
•

Just because it has no magical powers doesn't mean you can summarize its function as a LLM. LLMs lack the ability to form simplified abstractions and follow a reasoning. They are extremely inefficient ways to find patterns, even though you can run them fast. The fact of the matter remains that the data we can feed them as of now are limited in quantity.

It's not a naysayer perspective on AI, that's not my perspective. I'm just saying that LLMs alone aren't sufficient. They'll need some way to develop synthesized models of understanding to refer to, like humans developed physics.
u/throwaway_didiloseit avatar
throwaway_didiloseit
•
11h ago
•

Source for all these extraordinary claims?
u/StormyInferno avatar
StormyInferno
•
10h ago
•

A new born baby doesn't point at a cow and say moo.

It takes development and familiarity with many concepts to develop those connections. Look at studies done with children raised in captivity, vs children raised with ABC animal books and toys.

It's not proof, but it's a good hypothesis to start from.

Take it a step further back, and look at how we are pushing AI to learn how to develop it's own reinforcement learning. It could be humans start as "blank slates" in terms of reasoning, and learn how to learn, which allows us to make those jumps from picture to cat much quicker.

You see kids learning how physical reality works by stacking blocks, and fitting shapes together, etc...
ObiWanCanownme
•
12h ago
•
▪do you feel the agi?

It's really not a major unsolved problem if you consider that the learning LLMs do during pretraining is not analogous to the learning humans do during a lifespan.

Humans can recognize faces and voices from the moment they are born. It's not actually something we have to learn, because we are already pretrained by a half billion years of evolution.

SEE: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4496551/

Actually, humans are pretty stupid "out-of-the-box." Lots of animals can walk, find food, do specific calls, etc. immediately upon birth. Our advantage is our ability to learn during out lifespan. If you analogize us to LLMs, all of our learning is actually "in-context learning." LLMs are pretty good at in-context learning, and they will get better.
u/CloudPianos avatar
CloudPianos
•
14h ago
•

Quality Shitpost, updoot.
u/Evening_Chef_4602 avatar
Evening_Chef_4602
•
13h ago
•
▪️AGI Q4 2025 - Q2 2026

I was diagnosed with a mild case of LLM's
u/Enough-Frosting7716 avatar
Enough-Frosting7716
•
13h ago
•

They dont want to reason.
u/EsdrasCaleb avatar
EsdrasCaleb
•
13h ago
•

All humans are like this?
u/EsdrasCaleb avatar
EsdrasCaleb
•
13h ago
•

From my point of view, this is an evolutional behavior to a person continues inside the tribe as they value more the tribe identity than their position. We were changing tribe mentality but....
u/redditisnosey avatar
redditisnosey
•
13h ago
•

Is actually publishing a link to your study which allows others to review your methodology and determine for themselves that your conclusions are warranted or not a thing of the past?

Yes I did quick google search and have found that this Alexander Kruel writes a lot (no studies found by me) but can anyone link to the study he implies with the phrase "We reversed the position ........"?
u/Wiskkey avatar
Wiskkey
•
9h ago
•

See this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1g4ai0c/can_humans_truly_reason/ls24dfz/ .
u/redditisnosey avatar
redditisnosey
•
8h ago
•

So this is a tongue in cheek send up of criticisms of LLMs? That is very meta and it has passed by many people who are now using the statement to say "Humans can't reason".
u/Charuru avatar
Charuru
•
11h ago
•
▪️AGI 2023

These arguments are a waste of time. The dumbasses will hit reality soon.
u/Glitched-Lies avatar
Glitched-Lies
•
6h ago
•

They are getting ready for a really big fall.
u/HiddenMotives2424 avatar
HiddenMotives2424
•
14h ago
•

I see 1 cow, there is 1 cow in my field of view I conclude, I just did an act of reason whether correct or not. I wonder if group think is caused by the lack of information, because humans very much do have the ability to reason.
u/DreamlessWindow avatar
DreamlessWindow
•
14h ago
•

I'm pretty sure that this person is not really arguing that humans are unable to reason, and is more making a parody of how some tests to verify AI reasoning capabilities are being done. Just like a drop in performance in humans because of group-thinking doesn't mean humans are unable to reason, a drop in performance in AIs in certain scenarios may not necessarily imply that AIs are unable to reason, but that instead they have some pitfalls (and interestingly enough these pitfalls may be different between AIs and humans).

The truth is, I know I can reason since I can get in my own head (albeit with some caveats), but when it comes to anyone else (including you), the only way I can infer you can reason is through communication. You wrote a bunch of words above to try to prove that you can reason, but AIs can do the same, so it's not real proof. We assume all humans are capable of reason because we are biologically similar and express ourselves similarly, so we assume the underlying mechanisms are equally similar for how we arrive at the words we chose. Evaluating if someone else, including AIs, is capable of reason is a really complicated task, and some people on both sides of the field are too happy to say it's definitely one way or the other.

So, can you reason? I don't know. You can sometimes write as someone that can reason, but are you actually using reason to write that, or are you just imitating and somehow predicting a chain of words that mimics rational thought?

So, can an AI reason? I don't know. They can sometimes write as someone that can reason, but are they actually using reason to write that, or are they just imitating and somehow predicting a chain of words that mimics rational thought?
u/nightman avatar
nightman
•
13h ago
•

This!
u/Excited-Relaxed avatar
Excited-Relaxed
•
13h ago
•

I mean if I change a story problem from ‘John has five apples and gives Jane three apples, how many does he have left?’ to ‘Carol has six oranges and gives Bob two oranges , how many does she have left?’ Do you really expect a significant drop in performance? Now take into account that the first question is published in a well known test of scholastic aptitude that is most likely in the training set.
u/DreamlessWindow avatar
DreamlessWindow
•
13h ago
•

This may mean that one of AIs pitfalls is to stop "thinking" when the problem stated is similar enough to something in the training data. They may just assume it's the same problem and immediately give you the answer without actually finishing reading and understanding the question. Humans are prone to assume this kind of thing too (the usual "I know this one"), although obviously not with such a simple problem. How many times have you seen or heard of someone looking for their phone and using their phone's flashlight to look for it? Its something you wouldn't expect from someone operating rationally, yet here we are.

Of course, I'm not saying that this is what's happening, but that's it's harder to evaluate than what people think, and that both falling for things humans wouldn't fall for doesn't mean that AI is incapable of reason, and that it succeding at avoiding those pitfalls does not imply it is capable of reason either.
u/TaisharMalkier22 avatar
TaisharMalkier22
•
12h ago
•
▪️AGI 2027? - ASI 2035

Something similar happens in humans too. Its like Pavlovian conditioning. If I say a common phrase or saying that you have heard all the time in a speech, but slightly alter one of the words, chances are very good that you won't realize I snuck a little change in there.
u/HiddenMotives2424 avatar
HiddenMotives2424
•
13h ago
•

Ok I see your point, thank you.
FarrisAT
•
9h ago
•

Show me when LLMs can win tictactoe against a 3 year old consistently.
u/DreamlessWindow avatar
DreamlessWindow
•
8h ago
•

How do you know that the LLM is not letting the human win, just like how you'd never seriously challenge a 3 years old and instead let them win at least every now and then? Or are you telling me you'd crush a 3 years old at tic tac toe consistently?

Or maybe they are really bad at reading ahead, predicting what your next move will be. I wouldn't say that's necessary for reasoning. It could also be that they have a hard time figuring out the rules because they lack spacial awareness, so they don't understand the grid. There are plenty of reasons why a reasoning being may be bad at something humans may find easy (and it probably goes the other way around).

On the other hand, do you put the proof of reasoning on tic tac toe? If an LLM consistently wins, that will be proof enough for you that it is capable of reason? Or will you move to chess, and then go, and then...? Why tic tac toe and 3 years olds? Why not checkers against teenagers? Then again, there are plenty of AIs that can easily beat any human at any game? Do they reason, or is that not enough because they can't communicate through spoken/written language?

And just to reiterate my point, I'm not saying LLMs are capable of reason. I'm saying that figuring if they are or not is hard, maybe even impossible. We still haven't figured out how to prove that humans other than the self are capable of reasoning (for all I know I could be in the matrix and all of you could be NPCs with advanced AIs that mimic reason but are incapable of it) and a lot of people think they have it figured out when they don't. Hell, I don't even think that there's a proof that the self can reason, it's only an observation one can make about themselves, but what if it's just an illusion by the brain? Can we be really sure that we are more complex than an algorithm analyzing data perceived by the senses, checking that back against a database made out of our memories and base programming and instincts, and processing a response? And if we are just that, is that reasoning? If we are more than that, what is that extra that we have and makes us capable of reason? If we can't even figure these for ourselves, how can so many people be so sure that they have this figured out for something as alien to our way of thinking as an LLM? Yeah, they are just getting an input and multiplying that by a bunch of seemingly arbitrary numbers and then producing an output, but aren't we kinda similar, processing our inputs in our fleshy computer with seemingly arbitrary connections and outputting a response? When you are looking at it physically, what is reasoning? How does that look in the brain? And how would that translate to a machine?
FarrisAT
•
10h ago
•

This is so fucking stupid. Humans can reason. We are sentient. Definitionally, we are sentient and therefore we can reason. Story concluded.
Bortle_1
•
9h ago
•

I thought it was pretty stupid too. Of course we can reason. We may not always do it, or do it correctly, or do it over emotion. But we are certainly capable of doing it.
h3lblad3
•
9h ago
•
▪️In hindsight, AGI came in 2023.

Nearly every animal is sentient; can they all reason?
teratron27
•
12h ago
•

Yes
u/human1023 avatar
human1023
•
14h ago
•
▪️AI Expert

Yes humans can reason, but some don't.
u/ibandersnatch_ avatar
ibandersnatch_
•
14h ago
•

most*
u/360truth_hunter avatar
360truth_hunter
•
13h ago
•

most**
u/ShinyGrezz avatar
ShinyGrezz
•
12h ago
•

    changing the names of political parties can alter policy evaluations by ~10%!

This… seems like nothing? Politics in the US (and other countries, but I’m assuming this is about the US) are so polarised that of course someone’s perception of a policy is going to be coloured by the person that proposes it.

Say Trump proposes to abolish taxes on tips - well, I don’t exactly think of Trump as a “workers rights” kinda guy, so I hear that and think that either he won’t actually do it, or he’ll use the additional tip income to justify removing minimum wage protections, effectively turning the tax break into one for business owners.

If Harris proposes it, well I don’t have nearly the same preconceptions about her, so it doesn’t seem as ridiculous (even if I don’t necessarily believe that tips should be tax-free to begin with). It would go from a “strongly disagree” to just “disagree”, and I think it’s pretty clear I’m being reasonable about it. Repeat ad nauseum for any policy you like.
u/mean_bean_machine avatar
mean_bean_machine
•
11h ago
•

A wish asked of a monkey's paw is different than one asked of your Fairy Godmother.
I_hate_that_im_here
•
12h ago
•

The AI I've chatted with is more intelligent then 98% of humans I've met...and I'm being generous.
u/Slow_Half_4668 avatar
Slow_Half_4668
Cake icon •
2h ago
•

I wish this was a joke...
u/nightman avatar
nightman
•
14h ago
•

Link - https://www.facebook.com/xixidu/posts/pfbid02AvS6mBZSt2vrzGb8sv5RSxoycwgDAmJVd9RhLjH73Ce3Ysryv94xb95oXK6G7a2il
u/Leather-Objective-87 avatar
Leather-Objective-87
•
13h ago
•

I loved this 😂🙈
u/360truth_hunter avatar
360truth_hunter
•
13h ago
•

What surprise me the most is that when we say something "reasons" we take the reference of "reasoning" from human, how comes then we say human don't reason while at the same time that thingy is character observed from human? I think these people seek to debunk the ongoing claim that llm don't reason
u/ServeAlone7622 avatar
ServeAlone7622
•
11h ago
•

That post was written by Claude. It has has Claude fingerprints all over it.
u/Any-Cryptographer773 avatar
Any-Cryptographer773
•
11h ago
•

Now that is some interesting reasoning!
Bortle_1
•
9h ago
•

Q.E.D.
namitynamenamey
•
10h ago
•

The human being as an isolated unit is an oversimplification, we are components of a community and the effects of other humans in human behavior, though and mode of operation are significative.
u/Wiskkey avatar
Wiskkey
•
9h ago
•

We have human performance drops in a paper which I recently posted about in this sub: "Exploring the Compositional Deficiency of Large Language Models in Mathematical Reasoning": https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06680 . The human performance drop from non-trick versions of the math problems to trick versions was 97.6 - 83.8 = 13.8 percentage points, or 13.8 / 97.6 = 14.1% (page 4). The performance drop for the best-performing language model - o1-preview (via Web) - was 87.5 - 67.7 = 19.8 percentage points, or 19.8 / 87.5 = 22.6% (page 4).
u/wes_reddit avatar
wes_reddit
•
9h ago
•

Political "dialog" is at a GPT2 level at best.
Mandoman61
•
8h ago
• Edited 8h ago •

this article is junk.  it is well known that most people treat politics as a team sport and don't really care about the issues.  their reasoning is they support their party regardless. has nothing to do with actual reasoning.

60% of the population is best suited to labor and Ai on that level is not very helpful.
u/FabulousBass5052 avatar
FabulousBass5052
•
8h ago
•

"humans cant reason" my brother in christ, you are a human 😭🙏🏻
u/nightman avatar
nightman
•
7h ago
•

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/60mh9wK3bj
u/FabulousBass5052 avatar
FabulousBass5052
•
6h ago
•

are you trying to reason with me?
u/Glam-Two7429 avatar
Glam-Two7429
•
7h ago
•

It's fascinating how people with so little knowledge of biology consider humans to be so far above other animals. Whatever group you're part of, you'll do your best to blend in and stay there, that's how you survive. Nature does not care about your cute sophisticated opinions or the ideas you strongly oppose. It's the survival of the fittest, nothing more
u/Icarus367 avatar
Icarus367
•
6h ago
•

Given that this guy doesn't know what "begging the question" means, his own reasoning capabilities stand in doubt.
rddtexplorer
•
44m ago
•

This is stupid. By making fun of the Apple paper, he's committing red herring (a logical fallacy).

Also, yes, humans can reason, but we are imperfect, driven by mental shortcuts and emotions, and AIs are supposed to be better than we are.
[deleted]
•
12h ago
•

hi. where is this post from can you share link?
u/nightman avatar
nightman
•
11h ago
•

Sure - https://www.facebook.com/share/p/Y8c52kE4ZH5tpFNd/
u/qszz77 avatar
qszz77
•
13h ago
•

"Reasoning" is nothing more than if then statements.
vfl97wob
•
12h ago
•

I am therefore I reason
u/Icy_Bodybuilder9381 avatar
Icy_Bodybuilder9381
•
11h ago
•

Friends, did anyone here actually need AI to tell them that large groups of people are stupid? 
u/kkb294 avatar
kkb294
•
10h ago
•

Oh my god, we scummed from discussing whether a computer program can reason or not to whether we ourselves can reason or not 🤦‍♂️.
u/Emport1 avatar
Emport1
•
10h ago
•

We're just ai without the a 😮
Informal_Warning_703
•
13h ago
•

This guy just discovered stuff like confirmation bias, etc… well known in social psychology for decades.
u/nightman avatar
nightman
•
13h ago
•

    For those who don't get it:

    This is making fun of the following thread: https://x.com/MFarajtabar/status/1844456880971858028

    Based on the following study: “[C]itizens' policy opinions changed immediately and substantially when their party switched its policy position – even when the new position went against citizens' previously held views.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12550

    For a serious post about the thread see my post from yesterday here: https://www.facebook.com/xixidu/posts/pfbid022daby8YTkTuD5kgNyi4qmmNQJerWSB8e7vzY2TXoFZL3w2BJG1YD6PByApYK4eyKl

Top 1%
Rank by size
Created Jan 28, 2008
Public
User flair
XInTheDark
Rules
1
Off-Topic Posts
2
Self-Promotion/Advertising Spam
3
Low-quality/Wildly Speculative Posts
4
No flamebaiting / hate
Sidebar
Official r/Singularity Discord

https://discord.gg/UYXce9r8mD
Links

    Artificial Intelligence

    Universe

    Space Settlement

    Space Flight

    Cosmology

    Reddit Space Initiative

    Futurist Politics

    To the Moon

    Space Videos

    Starparty

    AskTechnology

    Transhuman

    Transhuman

    Transhumanism

    Cyborgs

    Nootropics

    Cyberpunk

    All the Sciences

    Futurism

    Post Earth

    RedditToTheFuture

    FutureWorldProblems

    FuturePorn

    Imaginary Technology

    Time Reddits

    Retro Futurism

    Automate

    TheVenusProject

    The Control Problem

        Singularity
        Singularity
        Singularitarianism
        Robotics
        Artificial

        SFT Network
        FAQ
        Join us in Chat!

Singularity the Music Video

A subreddit committed to intelligent understanding of the hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence progresses to the point of greater-than-human intelligence, radically changing civilization. This community studies the creation of superintelligence— and predict it will happen in the near future, and that ultimately, deliberate action ought to be taken to ensure that the Singularity benefits humanity.
On the Technological Singularity

The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a hypothetical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence. Because the capabilities of such an intelligence may be difficult for a human to comprehend, the technological singularity is often seen as an occurrence (akin to a gravitational singularity) beyond which the future course of human history is unpredictable or even unfathomable.

The first use of the term "singularity" in this context was by mathematician John von Neumann. The term was popularized by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement, or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. Futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts the singularity to occur around 2045 whereas Vinge predicts some time before 2030.

Proponents of the singularity typically postulate an "intelligence explosion", where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds, that might occur very quickly and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human.
Resources

    Machine Intelligence Research Institute
    LessWrong
    Follow us at on twitter
    Future of Humanity Institute
    H+Pedia

Posting Rules

1) On-topic posts

2) Discussion posts encouraged

3) No Self-Promotion/Advertising

4) Be respectful
Check out the Technological Singularity FAQ
Moderators

u/Anenome5 Anenome
u/Anen-o-me avatar u/Anen-o-me
u/DnDNecromantic avatar u/DnDNecromantic
u/Apollo24_ Apollo24
u/abrownn avatar u/abrownn (Not actually) Alton Brown
u/Vailhem avatar u/Vailhem
u/kevin143 avatar u/kevin143
u/Xenophon1
u/Gobi_The_Mansoe avatar u/Gobi_The_Mansoe

    u/sirmarcus

Message the mods View all moderators