But are these behaviors actually driven by true abstract reasoning abilities, or by some other less robust and generalizable mechanism—for example, by memorizing their training data and later matching patterns in a given problem to those found in training data? Why does this matter? If robust general-purpose reasoning abilities have emerged in LLMs, this bolsters the claim that such systems are an important step on the way to trustworthy general intelligence. On the other hand, if LLMs rely primarily on memorization and pattern-matching rather than true reasoning, then they will not be generalizable—we can’t trust them to perform well on “out of distribution” tasks, those that are not sufficiently similar to tasks they’ve seen in the training data.
No comments:
Post a Comment