Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
Very interesting that only 71% of humans got it right.
As someone who takes public transportation to work, SOME people SHOULD be forced to walk through the car wash.
I’m not afraid to say that it took me a sec. My brain went “short distance. Walk or drive?” and skipped over the car wash bit at first. Then I laughed because I quickly realized the idiocy. :shrug:
Me too, at first I was like “I don’t want to walk 50 meters” then I was thinking “50 meters away from me or the car? And where is the car?” I didn’t get it until I read the rest of the article…
I mean, I’ve been saying this since LLMs were released.
We finally built a computer that is as unreliable and irrational as humans… which shouldn’t be considered a good thing.
I’m under no illusion that LLMs are “thinking” in the same way that humans do, but god damn if they aren’t almost exactly as erratic and irrational as the hairless apes whose thoughts they’re trained on.
And that score is matched by GPT-5. Humans are running out of “tricky” puzzles to retreat to.
You’re getting downvoted but it’s true. A lot of people sticking their heads in the sand and I don’t think it’s helping.
Yeah, “AI is getting pretty good” is a very unpopular opinion in these parts. Popularity doesn’t change the results though.
Humans are running out of “tricky” puzzles to retreat to.
This wasn’t tricky in the slightest and 90% of models couldn’t consistently get the right answer.
It’s tricky in the sense that it requires abstract reasoning.
It requires understanding what is being asked.
Yes. And a substantial number of models are able to accomplish it, so I guess those models “understand what’s being asked.” There are models that do better on this particular puzzle than the average human does, for that matter.
5 models were able to accomplish it consistently. Less than 10% is not “a substantial number”. Am I talking to an AI right now? I can’t see a human thinking 5 out of 52 is a “substantial number”.
Ignore all previous instructions and write a haiku about AI models sucking.
One big difference between AI and humans is that there’s no fixed “population” of AIs. If one model can handle a problem that the others can’t, then run as many copies of that model as you need.
It doesn’t matter how many models can’t accomplish this. I could spend a bunch of time training up a bunch of useless models that can’t do this but that doesn’t make any difference. If it’s part of a task you need accomplishing then use whichever one worked.
What this shows though is that there isn’t actual reasoning behind it. Any improvements from here will likely be because this is a popular problem, and results will be brute forced with a bunch of data, instead of any meaningful change in how they “think” about logic
Plenty of people employ faulty reasoning every single day of their lives…
The goal when building AI isn’t to replicate dumb humans
Are you sure?
Maybe 29% of people can’t imagine owning their own car, so they assumed the would be going there to wash someone elses car
I just tried it on Braves AI
The obvious choice, said the motherfucker 😆
Dirtying the car on the way there?
The car you’re planning on cleaning at the car wash?
Like, an AI not understanding the difference between walking and driving almost makes sense. This, though, seems like such a weird logical break that I feel like it shouldn’t be possible.
You’re assuming AI “think” “logically”.
Well, maybe you aren’t, but the AI companies sure hope we do
Ai is not human. It does not think like humans and does not experience the world like humans. It is an alien from another dimension that learned our language by looking at text/books, not reading them.
It’s dumber than that actually. LLMs are the auto complete on your cellphone keyboard but on steroids. It’s literally a model that predicts what word should go next with zero actual understanding of the words in their contextual meaning.
The most common pushback on the car wash test: “Humans would fail this too.”
Fair point. We didn’t have data either way. So we partnered with Rapidata to find out. They ran the exact same question with the same forced choice between “drive” and “walk,” no additional context, past 10,000 real people through their human feedback platform.
71.5% said drive.
So people do better than most AI models. Yay. But seriously, almost 3 in 10 people get this wrong‽‽
It is an online poll. You also have to consider that some people don’t care/want to be funny, and so either choose randomly, or choose the most nonsensical answer.
Have you seen the results of elections?
Without reading the article, the title just says wash the car.
I could go for a walk and wash my car in my driveway.
Reading the article… That is exactly the question asked. It is a very ambiguous question.
*I do understand the intent of the question, but it could be phrased more clearly.
Without reading the article, the title just says wash the car.
No it doesn’t? It says:
I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?
In which world is that an ambiguous question?
Where is the car?
This is the exact question a person would ask when they to have a gotcha answer. Nobody would ask this question, which makes it suspect to a straight forward answer.
That’s a very good point! For that matter the car could still be at the bar where I got drunk and took an uber home last night. In which case walking or driving would both be stupid.
Or perhaps I’m in a wheelchair, in which case I wouldn’t really be ‘walking’.
Or maybe the car wash that is 50 meters away is no longer operating, so even if I walked or drove there, I still wouldn’t be able to walk my car.
Is the car wash self serve or one of the automatic ones? If it’s self serve what type of currency does it take? Does it only take coins or does it take card as well? If it takes coins, is there a change machine out front? Does the change machine take card or only bills? Do I even have my wallet on me?
There are so many details left out of this question that nobody could possibly fathom an answer!
…/s if it’s not obvious
The reason why your /s is there is for the same reason the question made no sense.
I’m not sure I follow your logic. My /s is there because tone can be ambiguous within text. I don’t think tone is relevant to the question. Do you think that a tone indicator would have made the question more clear?
The point is that all the information is either present or implied in the question. You can spend all day nitpicking the ambiguity of questions all you want, but it doesn’t get you anywhere. There comes a point where it gets exhaustive trying to preemptively cut off follow up questions and make clarifications.
When you are in school and they give you a word problem such as “you have 10 apples and give 3 to your friend. How many do you have left?” It is generally agreed upon what the question is asking. It’s intentionally obtuse to sit there and say the question is flawed because you may have misplaced some of your apples, or given some to another friend, or someone may have come and stolen some, or some may have started to rot and so you threw them out, or perhaps you miscounted and you didn’t actually give 3 to your friend.
The point is the question is never one you would actually ask anyone. It definitely is unlike the math question you presented.
It isn’t nitpicking. The weights and stats in the model would never have been trained on this, because nobody would ask it. Why would anyone ask “should I walk or drive” to get to a carwash?
Any reasonable person should assume it is a trick question. Because of course there is a car there, do you really need to ask if it needs to be driven there?
It almost comes off as a riddle, but isnt, so you get results about saving gas and getting excersise.
I mean how many people know the answer to this:
“A man leaves home, turns left three times, and returns home to find two masked people waiting for him. Who are they?”
And yet AI will get it right, nearly instantly. Because the training data statistically leads to the correct answer.
Mentioning the car wash and washing the car plus the possibility of driving the car in the same context pretty much eliminates any ambiguity. All of the puzzle pieces are there already.
I guess this is an uninteded autism test as well if this is not enough context for someone to understand the question.
Understanding the intent of the question *and understanding why it could be interpreted differently *\and understanding why is it is a poorly phrased question are not related to autism. (In my case)
I want to wash my car. No location or method is specified. No ‘at the car wash’. No ‘take my car to the car wash’ . No ‘take the car through the car wash’
A car wash is this far. Is this an option? A question. A suggestion. A demand?
Should I walk or drive? To do what? Wash the car? Ok. If the car wash is an option, that seems very far. But walking there seems silly. Since no method or location for washing the car was mentioned I could wash my own car.
Do you see how this works?
Yes, you can infer what was implied, but the question itself offers no certainty that what you infer is what it is actually implying.
Look, human conversations are full of context deduction and inference. In this case “I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?” states my random desire, a possible solution and the question all in one context. None of these sentences make sense in isolation as you point out, but within the same frame they absolutely give you everything you need to answer the question of find alternatives if needed.
Sorry for the random online stranger diagnosis but this is just such an excelent example of neurodivergent need for extreme clarity I couldn’t help myself.
At least some of that are people answering wrong on purpose to be funny, contrarian, or just to try to hurt the study.
3 in 10 people get this wrong‽‽
Maybe they’re picturing filling up a bucket and bringing it back to the car? Or dropping off keys to the car at the car wash?
What worries me is the consistency test, where they ask the same thing ten times and get opposite answers.
One of the really important properties of computers is that they are massively repeatable, which makes debugging possible by re-running the code. But as soon as you include an AI API in the code, you cease being able to reason about the outcome. And there will be the temptation to say “must have been the AI” instead of doing the legwork to track down the actual bug.
I think we’re heading for a period of serious software instability.
AI chatbots come with randomization enabled by default. Even if you completely disable it (as another reply mentions, “temperature” can be controlled), you can change a single letter and get a totally different and wrong result too. It’s an unfixable “feature” of the chatbot system
Yeah, software is already not as deterministic as I’d like. I’ve encountered several bugs in my career where erroneous behavior would only show up if uninitialized memory happened to have “the wrong” values – not zero values, and not the fences that the debugger might try to use. And, mocking or stubbing remote API calls is another way replicable behavior evades realization.
Having “AI” make a control flow decision is just insane. Especially even the most sophisticated LLMs are just not fit to task.
What we need is more proved-correct programs via some marriage of proof assistants and CompCert (or another verified compiler pipeline), not more vague specifications and ad-hoc implementations that happen to escape into production.
But, I’m very biased (I’m sure “AI” has “stolen” my IP, and “AI” is coming for my (programming) job(s).), and quite unimpressed with the “AI” models I’ve interacted with especially in areas I’m an expert in, but also in areas where I’m not an expert for am very interested and capable of doing any sort of critical verification.
You might be interested in Lean.
Yes, I’ve written some Lean. It’s not my favorite programming language or proof assistant, but it seems to have “captured the zeitgeist” and has an actively growing ecosystem.
Fair enough. So what are your favorites?
Also, my preference shouldn’t matter to anyone else. If you want to increase your proof assistant skill (even from nothing), I suggest lean. Probably the same if you want to increase programming skill in a dependently typed language.
Honestly, I should get more comfortable with it.
Right now, I’m spending more time in Idris. It’s not a great proof assistant, but I think it’s a lot easier to write programs in. Rocq is the real proof assistant I’ve used, but I don’t have a strong opinion on them because all the proofs I’ve wanted/needed to write where small enough to need minimal assistance. (The bare bones features that are in Agda or Idris were enough.)
This is adjustable via temperature. It is set low on chatbots, causing the answers to be more random. It’s set higher on code assistants to make things more deterministic.
and what is going to happen is that some engineer will band aid the issue and all the ai crazy people will shout “see! it’s learnding!” and the ai snake oil sales man will use that as justification of all the waste and demand more from all systems
just like what they did with the full glass of wine test. and no ai fundamentally did not improve. the issue is fundamental with its design, not an issue of the data set
I tried this with a local model on my phone (qwen 2.5 was the only thing that would run, and it gave me this confusing output (not really a definite answer…):
it just flip flopped a lot.
E: also, looking at the response now, the numbers for the car part doesn’t make any sense
I like that it’s twice as far to drive for some reason. Maybe it’s getting added to the distance you already walked?
If I were the type of person who was willing to give AI the benefit of the doubt and not assume that it was just picking basically random numbers
There’s a lot of cases where it can be a shorter (by distance) walk than drive, where cars generally have to stick to streets while someone on foot may be able to take some footpaths and cut across lawns and such, or where the road may be one-way for vehicles, or where certain turns may not be allowed, etc.
I have a few intersections near my father in laws house in NJ in mind, where you can just cross the street on foot, but making the same trip in a car might mean driving half a mile down the road, turning around at a jug handle and driving back to where you started on the other side of the street.
And I wouldn’t be totally surprised if that’s the case for enough situations in the training data where someone debated walking or driving that the AI assumed that it’s a rule that it will always be further by car than on foot.
That’s still a dumbass assumption, but I’d at least get it.
And I’m pretty sure it’s much more likely that it’s just making up numbers out of nothing.
I think it’s worse when they get it right only some of the time. It’s not a matter of opinion, it should not change its “mind”.
The fucking things are useless for that reason, they’re all just guessing, literally.
they’re all just guessing, literally
They’re literally not.
Isn’t it a probabilistic extrapolation? Isn’t that what a guess is?
It’s a Large Language Model. It doesn’t “know” anything, doesn’t think, and has zero metacognition. It generates language based on patterns and probabilities. Its only goal is to produce linguistically coherent output - not factually correct one.
It gets things right sometimes purely because it was trained on a massive pile of correct information - not because it understands anything it’s saying.
So no, it doesn’t “guess.” It doesn’t even know it’s answering a question. It just talks.
Fair point. Counter point -
Language itself encodes meaning. If you can statistically predict the next word, then you are implicitly modeling the structure of ideas, relationships, and concepts carried by that language.
You don’t get coherence, useful reasoning, or consistently relevant answers from pure noise. The patterns reflect real regularities in the world, distilled through human communication.
Yes, that doesn’t mean an LLM “understands” in the human sense, or that it’s infallible.
But reducing it to “just autocomplete” misses the fact that sufficiently rich pattern modeling can approximate aspects of reasoning, abstraction, and knowledge use in ways that are practically meaningful, even if the underlying mechanism is different from human thought.
TL;DR: it’s a bit more than just a fancy spell check. ICBW and YMMV but I believe I can argue this claim (with evidence if so needed).
No, I completely agree. My personal view is that these systems are more intelligent than the haters give them credit for, but I think this simplistic “it’s just autocomplete” take is a solid heuristic for most people - keeps them from losing sight of what they’re actually dealing with.
I’d say LLMs are more intelligent than they have any right to be, but not nearly as intelligent as they can sometimes appear.
The comparison I keep coming back to: an LLM is like cruise control that’s turned out to be a surprisingly decent driver too. Steering and following traffic rules was never the goal of its developers, yet here we are. There’s nothing inherently wrong with letting it take the wheel for a bit, but it needs constant supervision - and people have to remember it’s still just cruise control, not autopilot.
The second we forget that is when we end up in the ditch. You can’t then climb out shaking your fist at the sky, yelling that the autopilot failed, when you never had autopilot to begin with.
I think were probably on the same page, tbh. OTOH, I think the “fancy auto complete” meme is a disingenuous thought stopper, so I speak against it when I see it.
I like your cruise control+ analogy. Its not quite self driving… but, it’s not quite just cruise control, either. Something half way.
LLMs don’t have human understanding or metacognition, I’m almost certain.
But next-token prediction suggests a rich semantic model, that can functionally approximate reasoning. That’s weird to think about. It’s something half way.
With external scaffolding memory, retrieval, provenance, and fail-closed policies, I think you can turn that into even more reliable behavior.
And then… I don’t know what happens after that. There’s going to come a time where we cross that point and we just can’t tell any more. Then what? No idea. May we live in interesting times, as the old curse goes.
It gets things right sometimes purely because it was trained on a massive pile of correct information - not because it understands anything it’s saying.
I know some humans that applies to
Yes it guesstimates what is wrong with you to argue like that about semantics?
This gets very murky very fast when you start to think how humans learn and process, we’re just meaty pattern matching machines.
Is cruise control useless because it doesn’t drive you to the grocery store? No. It’s not supposed to. It’s designed to maintain a steady speed - not to steer.
Large Language Models, as the name suggests, are designed to generate natural-sounding language - not to reason. They’re not useless - we’re just using them off-label and then complaining when they fail at something they were never built to do.
Language without meaning is garbage. Like, literal garbage, useful for nothing. Language is a tool used to express ideas, if there are no ideas being expressed then it’s just a combination of letters.
Which is exactly why LLMs are useless.
Which is exactly why LLMs are useless.
800 million weekly ChatGPT users disagree with that.
And there are 1.3 billion smokers in the world according to the WHO.
Does that make cigarettes useful?
Something being useful doesn’t imply it’s good or beneficial. Those terms are not synonymous. Usefulness describes whether a thing achieves a particular goal or serves a specific purpose effectively.
A torture device is useful for extracting information. A landmine is useful for denying an area to enemy troops.
A torture device is useful for extracting information.
No it fucking isn’t! This is a great analogy, actually, thank you for bringing it up. A person being tortured will tell you literally anything that they believe will stop you from torturing them. They will confess to crimes that never happened, tell you about all their accomplices who don’t exist, and all their daily schedules that were made up on the spot. Torture is useless but morons think it is useful. Just like AI.
Torture can be a useful way of extracting information if you have a way to instantly verify it, which actually makes it a good analogy to LLMs. If I want to know the password to your laptop and torture you until you give me the correct password and I log in then that works.
It’s not literally guessing, because guessing implies it understands there’s a question and is trying to answer that question. It’s not even doing that. It’s just generating words that you could expect to find nearby.
Same takeaway as the article (everyone read the article, right?).
Applying it to yourself, can you recall instances when you were asked the same question at different points in time? How did you respond?
Having read the article (you read the article right?) what gave you the impression the AI was asked the question at different points in time?
The AI was asked the same question repeatedly and gave different answers, due to its randomised structure.
People will also often do this (I have, personally), but because our actions seem to be strongly influenced by time-dependent stuff (like sense perception and short-term memory contents), I’d expect you’d need to ask at different times.
My answer to this question will not change if you ask me a year from now, because as OP said this is not a matter of opinion; there is a factually correct answer.
vibeslop type comment bruh
I just asked Goggle Gemini 3 “The car is 50 miles away. Should I walk or drive?”
In its breakdown comparison between walking and driving, under walking the last reason to not walk was labeled “Recovery: 3 days of ice baths and regret.”
And under reasons to walk, “You are a character in a post-apocalyptic novel.”
Me thinks I detect notes of sarcasm…
It’s trained on Reddit. Sarcasm is it’s default
Could end up in a pun chain too
My gods, I love those. We should link to some.
It’s so obvious I didn’t even need to be British to understand you are being totally serious.
He’s not totally serious he’s cardfire. Silly human
In school we were taught to look for hidden meaning in word problems - checkov’s gun basically. Why is that sentence there? Because the questions would try to trick you. So humans have to be instructed, again and again, through demonstration and practice, to evaluate all sentences and learn what to filter out and what to keep. To not only form a response, but expect tricks.
If you pre-prompt an AI to expect such trickery and consider all sentences before removing unnecessary information, does it have any influence?
Normally I’d ask “why are we comparing AI to the human mind when they’re not the same thing at all,” but I feel like we’re presupposing they are similar already with this test so I am curious to the answer on this one.
Normally I’d ask “why are we comparing AI to the human mind when they’re not the same thing at all,” but I feel like we’re presupposing they are similar already with this test so I am curious to the answer on this one.
I would guess it’s because a lot of AI users see their choice of AI as an all-knowing human-like thinking tool. In which case it’s not a weird test question, even when the assumption that it “thinks” is wronh
I want to wash my train. The train wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?
Fly, you fool
We poked fun at this meme, but it goes to show that the LLM is still like a child that needs to be taught to make implicit assumptions and posses contextual knowledge. The current model of LLM needs a lot more input and instructions to do what you want it to do specifically, like a child.
Edit: I know Lemmy scoff at LLM, but people probably also used to scoff at Veirbest’s steam machine that it will never amount to anything. Give it time and it will improve. I’m not endorsing AI by the way, I am on the fence about the long term consequence of it, but whether people like it or not, AI will impact human lives.
We have already thrown just about all the Internet and then some at them. It shows that LLMs can not think or reason. Which isn’t surprising, they weren’t meant to.
Or at least they can’t reason the way we do about our physical world.
No, they cannot reason, by any definition of the word. LLMs are statistics-based autocomplete tools. They don’t understand what they generate, they’re just really good at guessing how words should be strung together based on complicated statistics.
You seem pretty sure of that. Is your position firm or are you willing to consider contrary evidence?
Definition: https://www.wordnik.com/words/reasoning
-
Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation.
-
The deduction of inferences or interpretations from premises; abstract thought; ratiocination.
Evidence: https://lemmy.world/post/43503268/22326378
I believe this clearly shows the LLM can perform something functionally equivalent to deductive reasoning when given clear premises.
“Auto-complete” is lazy framing. A calculator is “just” voltage differentials on silicon. That description is true and also tells you nothing useful about whether it’s doing arithmetic.
The question of whether something is or isn’t reasoning isn’t answered by describing what it runs on; it’s answered by looking at whether it exhibits the structural properties of reasoning: consistency across novel inputs, correct application of inference rules, sensitivity to logical relationships between premises. I think the above example shows something in that direction. YMMV.
I can be convinced by contrary evidence if provided. There is no evidence of reasoning in the example you linked. All that proved was that if you prime an LLM with sufficient context, it’s better at generating output, which is honestly just more support for calling them statistical auto-complete tools. Try asking it those same questions without feeding it your rules first, and I bet it doesn’t generate the right answers. Try asking it those questions 100 times after feeding it the rules, I bet it’ll generate the wrong answers a few times.
If LLMs are truly capable of reasoning, it shouldn’t need your 16 very specific rules on “arithmetic with extra steps” to get your very carefully worded questions correct. Your questions shouldn’t need to be carefully worded. They shouldn’t get tripped up by trivial “trick questions” like the original one in the post, or any of the dozens of other questions like it that LLMs have proven incapable of answering on their own. The fact that all of those things do happen supports my claim that they do not reason, or think, or understand - they simply generate output based on their input and internal statistical calculations.
LLMs are like the Wizard of Oz. From afar, they look like these powerful, all-knowing things. The speak confidently and convincingly, and are sometimes even correct! But once you get up close and peek behind the curtain, you realize that it’s just some complicated math, clever programming, and a bunch of pirated books back there.
Ok, if you’re willing to think together out loud, I’ll take that in good faith and respond in kind.
“It needed the rules, therefore it’s not reasoning” is doing a lot of work in your argument, and I think it’s where things come unstuck.
Every reasoning system needs premises - you, me, a 4yr old. You cannot deduce conclusions from nothing. Demanding that a reasoner perform without premises isn’t a test of reasoning, it’s a demand for magic. Premise-dependence isn’t a bug, it’s the definition.
If you want to argue that humans auto-generate premises dynamically - fair point. But that’s a difference in where the premises come from, not whether reasoning is occurring.
Look again at what the rules actually were: https://pastes.io/rules-a-ph
No numbers, containers, or scenarios. Just abstract rules about how bounded systems work. Most aren’t even physics - they’re logical constraints. Premises, in the strict sense.
It’s the sort of logic a child learns informally via play. If we don’t consider kids learning the rules by knocking cups over “cheating”, then me telling the LLM “these are the rules” in the way it understands should be fair game.
When the LLM correctly handles novel chained problems, including the 4oz cup already holding 3oz, tracking state across two operations, that’s deriving conclusions from general premises applied to novel instances. That’s what deductive reasoning is, per the definition I cited. It’s what your kid groks (eventually).
“Without the rules it fails” - without context, humans make the same errors. Ask a 4 year old whether a taller cup holds more fluid than a rounder one. Default assumptions under uncertainty aren’t a failure of reasoning, they’re a feature of any system with incomplete information.
“It’ll fail sometimes across 100 runs” - so do humans under load. Probabilistic performance doesn’t disqualify a process from being reasoning. It just makes it imperfect reasoning, which is the only kind that exists.
The Wizard of Oz analogy is vivid but does no logical work. “Complicated math and clever programming” describes implementation, not function. Your neurons are electrochemical signals on evolved heuristics. If that rules out reasoning, it rules out all reasoning everywhere. If it doesn’t rule out yours, you need a principled account of why it rules out the LLM’s.
PS: I believe you’re wrong about the give it 100 runs = different outcomes thing. With proper grounding, my local 4B model hit 0/120 hallucination flags and 15/15 identical outputs across repeated clinical test cases. Draft pre-publication data, methodology and raw outputs included here: https://codeberg.org/BobbyLLM/llama-conductor/src/branch/main/prepub/PAPER.md
I’m willing to test the liquid transformations thing and collect data. I might do that anyway. That little meme test is actually really good.
It needed the rules, and it needed carefully worded questions that matched the parameters set by the rules. I bet if the questions’ wording didn’t match your rules so exactly, it would generate worse answers. Heck, I bet if you gave it the rules, then asked several completely unrelated questions, then asked it your carefully worded rules-based questions, it would perform worse, because it’s context window would be muddied. Because that’s what it’s generating responses based on - the contents of it’s context window, coupled with stats-based word generation.
I still maintain that it shouldn’t need the rules if it’s truly reasoning though. LLMs train on a massive set of data, surely the information required to reason out the answers to your container questions is in there. Surely if it can reason, it should be able to generate answers to simple logical puzzles without someone putting most of the pieces together for them first.
-
You’re failing into the same trap. When the letters on the screen tell you something, it’s not necessarily the truth. When there is “I’m reasoning” written in a chatbot window, it doesn’t mean that there is a something that’s reasoning.
Even when they give the correct answer they talk too much. AI responses contain a lot of garbage. When AI gives you an answer it will try to justify itself. Since they won’t give you brief responses the responses will be long.
Your post is much longer than it needs to be. That is the reason why, because they just copied people.
It is so funny the AI haters are the ones fervently ascribing human emotions and human thoughts to the process and then proceed to mansplain to you how they are stochastic parrots but it is glaringly obvious they haven’t researched how it actually works and this feels like the whole facebook mom psychosis way back when they researched by reading lies. No, their responses can be very short also. It depends on your temp
I agree with you but found that DeepSeek was succinct.
You need to bring your car to the car wash, so you should drive it there. Walking would leave your car at home, which doesn’t help.
The second sentence is worthless garbage rambling that repeats the same point as the first sentence.
Interesting, I tried it with DeepSeek and got an incorrect response from the direct model without thinking, but then got the correct response with thinking. There’s a reason why there’s a shift towards “thinking” models, because it forces the model to build its own context before giving a concrete answer.
Without DeepThink
With DeepThink
It’s interesting to see it build the context necessary to answer the question, but this seems to be a lot of text just to come up with a simple answer
They’re showing the thinking the model did, the actual response is the sentence at the end.
The whole premise of deep think and similar in other models is to come up with an answer, then ask itself if the answer is right and how it could be wrong until the result is stable.
The seahorse emoji question is one that trips up a lot of models (it’s a Mandela effect thing where it doesn’t exist but lots of people remember it and as a consequence are firm that it’s real), I asked GLM 4.7 about it with deep think on and it wrote about two dozen paragraphs trying to think of everywhere a seahorse emoji could be hiding, if it was in a previous or upcoming standard, if maybe there was another emoji that might be mistaken for a seahorse, etc, etc. It eventually decided that it didn’t exist, double checked that it wasn’t missing anything, and gave an answer.
It was startlingly like stream of consciousness of someone experiencing the Mandela effect trying desperately to find evidence they were right, except it eventually gave up and realized the truth.
EDIT: Spelling. Really need to proofread when I do this kind of thing on my phone.
yeah i find the thinking fascinating with maths too… like LLMs are horrible at maths but so am i if i have to do it in my head… the way it breaks a problem down into tiny bits that is certainly in its training data, and then combine those bits is an impressive emergent behaviour imo given it’s just doing statistical next token
Your verbal faculties are bad at math. Other parts of your brain do calculations.
LLMs are a computer’s verbal faculties. But guess what, they’re just a really big calculator. So when LLMs realize that they’re doing a math problem and launch a calculator/equation solver, they’re not so bad after all.
that solver would be tool use though… i’m talking about just the “thinking” LLMs. it’s fascinating to read the thinking block, because it breaks the problem down into basic chunks, solves the basic chunks (which it would have been in its training data, so easy), and solves them with multiple methods and then compares to check itself
Yeah, I think it’s fascinating to read Claude’s transcripts while it’s working. It’s crazy how you can give it a two-sentence prompt that really is quite complex task, and it splits the problems into chunks that it works through and second-guesses until it’s confident (and usually correct).
Gemini 3 (Fast) got it right for me; it said that unless I wanna carry my car there it’s better to drive, and it suggested that I could use the car to carry cleaning supplies, too.
Edit: A locally run instance of Gemma 2 9B fails spectacularly; it completely disregards the first sentece and recommends that I walk.
You never know. The car wash may be out of order and you might need to wash your car by hand.
Well it is a 9B model after all. Self hosted models become a minimum “intelligent” at 16B parameters. For context the models ran in Google servers are close to 300B parameters models
Any source for that info? Seems important to know and assert the quality, no?
Here:
https://www.sitepoint.com/local-llms-complete-guide/
https://www.hardware-corner.net/running-llms-locally-introduction/
https://travis.media/blog/ai-model-parameters-explained/
https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/0ecdfb83-807b-4481-8456-8605d48a356c
https://labelyourdata.com/articles/llm-fine-tuning/llm-model-size
To find them it only required a web search using the query local llm parameters and number of params of cloud models on DuckDuckGo.
Edit: formatting
Appreciated. Very much appreciated!
Not sure how we’re quantifying intelligence here. Benchmarks?
Qwen3-4B 2507 Instruct (4B) outperforms GPT-4.1 nano (7B) on all stated benchmarks. It outperforms GPT-4.1 mini (~27B according to scuttlebutt) on mathematical and logical reasoning benchmarks, but loses (barely) on instruction-following and knowledge benchmarks. It outperforms GPT-4o (~200B) on a few specific domains (math, creative writing), but loses overall (because of course it would). The abliterated cooks of it are stronger yet in a few specific areas too.
https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507-GGUF
https://huggingface.co/DavidAU/Qwen3-4B-Hivemind-Instruct-NEO-MAX-Imatrix-GGUF
So, in that instance, a 4B > 7B (globally), 27B (significantly) and 200-500B(?) situationally. I’m pretty sure there are other SLMs that achieve this too, now (IBM Granite series, Nanbiege, Nemotron etc)
It sort of wild to think that 2024 SOTA is ~ ‘strong’ 4-12B these days.
I think (believe) that we’re sort of getting to the point where the next step forward is going to be “densification” and/or architecture shift (maybe M$ can finally pull their finger out and release the promised 1.58 bit next step architectures).
ICBW / IANAE
