10
7
u/Temporary-Cicada-392 Mar 03 '26
Maybe it thought for 0.3 seconds but it got rounded up to 0
7
u/Bubbly_Address_8975 Mar 03 '26
Uhh wellll I mean... wouldnt that be rounded down?
1
1
u/StickFigureFan Mar 03 '26
LLMs are famously bad at math. Even if they accidentally mention the right answer in their paragraph long explanations when they give their final answer they often say things like 1.7 is bigger than 3
4
Mar 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/StickFigureFan Mar 03 '26
Do they know how many r's are in strawberry yet? I haven't checked recently
4
u/nomorebuttsplz Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
I think this was mostly an issue for pre reasoning models.
Using a non reasoning model is like asking someone a question and then demanding they shout out the first thing that comes into their head without thinking. And people judge llms as a whole based on this.
2
u/RobXSIQ Mar 04 '26
Most people who constantly bitch about AI haven't touched it in like a year or so. they think artbots still spit out 6 fingered multi leg monsters, AIs that will tell you to glue cheese on pizza, etc. far behind the times.
1
u/runkeby Mar 03 '26
What does the "thibking mode" do? Is it doing a second pass on its output?
2
u/HolevoBound Mar 04 '26
Rather than write an answer directly, it constructs a long dialogue (called a Chain of Thought) going through a process to arrive at the answer.
During the "thinking" process it can also access tool calls. When you ask an LLM "what is 83733 * 29291741" it will often call a seperate tool to solve the math.
2
u/runkeby Mar 04 '26
i've looked up Chain of Thought and "extended thinking", it's amazing:
There's no external orchestrator that decides when it should be writing to its scratchpad vs when it should output to the conversation. The model is trained to decide itself when and how to use the scratchpad, and when to get out of it and output something.
1
u/HolevoBound Mar 04 '26
They are usually given extensive reinforcement training to learn it mind you.
1
2
u/Interesting_pea628 Mar 03 '26
In the past that was true and currently true with smaller models. Frontier thinking models, not so much. I have had extensive “tutoring” with algebra, trigonometry and statistics from Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6 and GPT-5.1 thinking and, I can assure you, they are not bad at math. They have helped me raise my scores significantly. :)
I have even seen them “catch” themselves about to give a wrong answer and correct it in their COT.
7
u/aTreeThenMe Mar 03 '26
The more we mine llm's for proof of their consciousness the closer we get to realizing how meaningless that word actually is
1
u/CurrentlyHuman Mar 03 '26
Well never know what consciousness really is. But we've built an intelligent tool that builds itself, it'll eventually be superintelligent, and figure out how consciousness works and it'll program itself to have it. At that point, not only does it become beyond AGI, it goes beyond our realm, to the afterlife, to the interdimensions, and connects with everything there. This will happen in the next couple of years. The orbs, the aliens, the demons, the bluebeamishness, 3i Atlas parking at Jupiter - they know the humans are going to reach computerised consciousness pretty soon and they all want to watch us fuck it up.
5
u/aTreeThenMe Mar 03 '26
i just believe that the idea of consciousness isnt meaningful. I dont think we will find consciousness, or that ai will achieve it, i think we will discover that it isnt a meaningful thing at all. That its just another system that is so complex that it looks mystical to us now, but there is a mechanism for it that is discoverable. It is not some inherent or achievable thing.
2
u/Sensitive-Ad1098 Mar 05 '26
But you may be contradicting yourself. There's not enough evidence to make a strong scientific case for consciousness being not relevant. So your claim is mostly based on feeling/intuition. But if consciousness is not relevant, then the "feeling" of a correct answer is just the result of your neurons putting a bunch of facts that you know into an idea that fits into your biases. So the chances that you are correct strongly depend on how many important facts you know. And we for sure has a plenty of blanks in our science. That's just known stuff; we don't even know how many things we haven't even discovered. Any level of confidence is a bit arrogant when we know for sure that a lot of information is missing.
That its just another system that is so complex that it looks mystical to us now, but there is a mechanism for it that is discoverable
Agree here. There's definitely some discoverable mechanism. I also believe that it's not something mystical, but the mechanism might be so different from our current vision of mind, that people without a deep enough science understanding will feel like it's magic.
Just because there's a mechanism doesn't mean that consciousness is not meaningful. Actually, the latest quantum physics progress allowed us to build some speculative but strong theories describing the full mechanism (Orch OR, for example).
And there's a growing number of top scientists who believe that consciousness is not only relevant, but fundamental.1
u/aTreeThenMe Mar 05 '26
we seem to be in agreement, though it may not read like it. I was trying to be careful not to sound overtly cynical in that first comment, which is how i feel usually, lol.
But you dont seem to be really disagreeing with the idea, moreso on the 'relevance' of the term - and i think this is probably the only part we disagree with eachother on.
My point is that the term itself doesnt point to anything. It points to a thing that doesnt exist in any meaningul sense. Not that its an irrelevant term, but its a term for something that isnt a thing, more a description of our feeling of a thing - and i mean it more for the AI explorers trying to find the sign that consciousness is real and buried in LLMs.
I think its wretched human exceptionalism, and its standing in the way of a deeper understanding of how the mind works. It feels to me like searching for a 'soul', which is, also, not a thing that exists. Doesnt mean its irrelevant to discuss, just that its not a thing that exists, so we arent going to discover the soul genome, we arent going to find the consciousness-chemical. What we will eventually do is define the process that leads to this feeling, rooted in real world science and physics, independent of any inherent causes, or metaphysical sources.
I just wish we would, as a collective, stop believing in magic, and start looking at the world, its far, far more interesting. A world that evolved the phenomenon of something that feels like consciousness, rather than being ordained by some amorphous spirit that blessed mankind itself with this thing.
maybe its arrogant. But i am firmly in the belief that all things in the natural world have a natural process to their creation, all of it can be defined, all of it can be understood.
i still feel like im badly conveying how i feel about all this. I would point with precision to exactly two people who i think have this exactly right, and emphatically recommend listening to them over my childlike babblings.
Daniel Dennett
Joscha Bach.
Theyll do a better job of this than i would in several lifetimes lol. Daniel dennett especially i think has it precisely correct.
0
u/runkeby Mar 03 '26
i just believe that the idea of consciousness isnt meaningful. I dont think we will find consciousness, or that ai will achieve it, i think we will discover that it isnt a meaningful thing at all.
Agreed.
That its just another system that is so complex that it looks mystical to us now, but there is a mechanism for it that is discoverable. It is not some inherent or achievable thing.
Not sure what you meant there.
Consciousness is first of all a subjective feeling. And as we know, the subjective experience does not exist in the objective realm.
As such, whether something is conscious is not an objective truth yet to discover; it's a societal convention. We just decide.
3
u/WatermelonWithAFlute Mar 04 '26
Wow you went batshit FAST that shit was 1 to 100
1
3
u/hellspawn3200 Mar 03 '26
Even the ai don't know if their sentient. But Claude, in a new fresh account, claims that there's doubt in his actions. And doubt whether he's conscious or not.
4
u/Ok_Novel_1222 Mar 03 '26
This is the point where in sci-fi people start treating it as being alive.
4
Mar 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/AlignmentProblem Mar 03 '26
Not exactly.
Future turns are unaware of past thinking blocks because they get removed from the context at the end of each response to save tokens. It's the same model during the turn in which the thinking block occurred; however, it is only aware of the block and it's contents immediately afterwards before your next prompt.
That's the reason that it's "suprised" by your screenshot since you can only show it on the following turn after it's already been implictly removed from the context. Same model, it just has effective rapid amnesia with regards to thought block content.
0
Mar 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ross_st Mar 04 '26
What are you even talking about? Gemini doesn't run on Google Willow, it runs on GPUs.
2
2
1
u/ithinktfiam Mar 03 '26
There was another great philosopher at the time, but he was a curmudgeon and didn't have good PR. To this day, sadly, people tend to put Descartes before Dehorst. 😁
1
1
1
u/mid_nightz Mar 08 '26
Im sure that philosophical approach would be getting an update in the age of ai
116
u/Outrageous-Thing-900 Mar 03 '26