Well, two responses I have seen to the claim that LLMs are not reasoning are:

1. we are all just stochastic parrots lmao
2. maybe intelligence is an emergent ability that will show up eventually (disregard the inability to falsify this and the categorical nonsense that is our definition of "emergent").

So I think this research is useful as a response to these, although I think "fuck off, promptfondler" is pretty good too.

there’s a lot of people (especially here, but not only here) who have had the insight to see this being the case, but there’s also been a lot of boosters and promptfondlers (ie. people with a vested interest) putting out claims that their precious word vomit machines are actually thinking

so while this may confirm a known doubt, rigorous scientific testing (and disproving) of the claims is nonetheless a good thing

A lot of people still don't, from what I can gather from some of the comments on "AI" topics. Especially the ones that skew the other way with its "AI" hysteria is often an invite from people who know fuck all about how the tech works. "Nudifier" or otherwise generative images or explicit chats with bots that portray real or underage people being the most common topics that attract emotionally loaded but highly uninformed demands and outrage. Frankly, the whole "AI" topic in the media is so massively overblown on both fronts, but I guess it is good for traffic and nuance is dead anyway.

This has been said multiple times but I don't think it's possible to internalize.

The VC/MBA class thinks all communication can be distilled into saying the precise string of words that triggers the stochastically desired response in the consumer. Conveying ideas or information is not the point. This is why ChatGPT seems like the holy grail to them, it effortlessly* generates mountains of corporate slop that carry no actual meaning. It's all form and no substance, because those people -- their entire existence, the essence of their cursed dark souls -- has no substance.

• batteries not included