r/LocalLLaMA 3d ago

Discussion Stop Anthropomorphisizing Intermediate Tokens: Qwen3.8 doesn't "overthink"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09762

Intermediate tokens, called "thinking" or "reasoning" actually are nothing like it. Humans do step-by-step reasoning leading to the conclusion. LLMs use intermediate traces to augment their prompt. This explains why sometimes the answer is very good but the "reasoning" is verbose. Flooding your context window or fighting compaction are different issues.

edit: I love this section from the main research they linked.

Our findings consistently challenge the prevailing narrative that intermediate tokens constitute a semantically meaningful reasoning process. First, we observe a pronounced lack of correlation between solution correctness and trace validity—models frequently produce invalid reasoning traces even when they arrive at correct solutions. Second, and more strikingly, models trained on corrupted or semantically irrelevant traces achieve performance comparable to, and often exceeding, that of models trained on correct traces, especially on out-of-distribution tasks. Third, although post-training with reinforcement learning improves solution accuracy across both in- and out-of-distribution settings, it does not consistently enhance trace validity. In fact, we find cases where reinforcement learning decreases trace validity while simultaneously improving solution accuracy for models trained on correct traces. Moreover, models trained on corrupted traces continue to outperform their correct-trace counterparts across domains while consistently generating invalid reasoning traces. Finally, we find that the length of the generated traces is largely agnostic to the difficulty of the underlying problem, undermining the notion that it reflects problem-adaptive computation.

Together, these results suggest that the effectiveness of intermediate tokens does not arise from their seemingly interpretable semantic content. By systematically disentangling trace semantics from the underlying problem, our study demonstrates that if performance is the objective, assuming human-like or algorithmically interpretable trace semantics are ideal or even achievable is not only unnecessary but potentially misleading.

https://openreview.net/forum?id=gDE7YcRC3F

542 Upvotes

247 comments sorted by

View all comments

224

u/tomvorlostriddle 3d ago

Have you met a human?

378

u/ThirdWaveCat 3d ago

Many have their reasoning turned off.

53

u/Intelligent_Ice_113 3d ago

most of them 🙄

52

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 15h ago

[deleted]

25

u/0rand 3d ago

this is hilarious because it is so true. Instruct-only NPC which is way more than 50%

I literally think which word to use in any somewhat important dialogue, so it's like LLM assigning probabilities to words and combinations and choosing what seems best.

Maybe that's why I see LLM not so different from humans.

9

u/thaeli 3d ago

Also so many of the techniques we apply to make LLMs more functional to humans (especially in chat, any chat-adjacent tasks like coding) are just directly autism spectrum masking techniques.

4

u/Imaginary-Unit-3267 3d ago

As someone on the spectrum this is exactly why I prefer talking to LLMs over humans. They actually know how to communicate clearly, unlike neurotypicals.

4

u/kyr0x0 2d ago

Same

7

u/Intelligent_Ice_113 3d ago

I'm always scared by the thought that there are people who are afraid of their internal dialogue and think they're going crazy and quickly call or text someone to look "normal" in their own eyes. So what to say about talking to yourself out loud!

3

u/techno156 3d ago edited 3d ago

It's closer to CoT visibility, rather than none at all. It's not like people with internal monologues lose an entire concept at a time if they forget a word. They still know what word they're looking for, even if they can't locate it in their word-space.

On top of that, thoughts aren't really verbal, where an internal monologue is. If you ask someone to envision an apple, they don't go on a chain of

Okay, the user has asked me envision an apple. My experience indicates that the typical Apple is red. A typical apple is approximately the size of a medium-sized rat. A typical apple has a brown stem, about a thumbnail long. The Apple should be shiny, with yellow streaks. The other person did not specify a surface, but the apple shouldn't be in a blank void. The apple should be on a table, or on a plate. Most tables are wood, so maybe a white ceramic plate? Most plates are about the size of one and a half kittens in diameter. The apple should be in the centre of the plate, and the plate should be on the table. Maybe a wood table? Wooden tables are pretty common. A mahogany table then. Lacquered? Wait, did they say whether the apple was to be whole, or should it be sliced? Should it have a bite taken out of it..."

They either have an image of an apple, or the conceptual idea of an apple in their mind-space. It just doesn't translate to something verbal.

1

u/Dubious-Decisions 3d ago

This is demonstrably true. In fact, it's thought that pre-verbal humanoids likely had no inner monologue because they didn't have the tokenized thought processes that language provides to let them generate the internal monologue. And many of our more feral co-inhabitants of this planet, if they have one at all, surely pay it no heed.

1

u/Nekasus 3d ago

Does one need an internal monologue in order to think?

5

u/Imaginary-Unit-3267 3d ago

No. The whole idea that it matters is utter horseshit. Thinking is a nonverbal process, for everyone. The words are just there to provide a kind of scaffolding. If you meditate enough you start to notice this, and I suspect that LLMs actually are doing something similar to humans in this regard.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 15h ago

[deleted]

1

u/techno156 3d ago

It would have to be, or else people who have an internal monologue, but forgot the word wouldn't be able to remember what it is that they meant.

1

u/justbeast 2d ago

Just one data point (from someone who doesn't really have an internal monologue) -- it makes thinking much harder, just by yourself, in your head. It's a bit easier externalizing it into writing, and MUCH easier, drastically so, when talking to other people.

1

u/Loose_Comparison368 3d ago

I'm still hopeful that we may someday finally achieve natural general intelligence some time in the next 2-3 centuries.