Honest question: Why so many people attribute "thinking", "knowing, "understanding", "reasoning", "extrapolating" and even "symbolic reasoning" to the outputs of the advanced token-based probabilistic sequence generators, also known as LLMs?
LLMs are inherently incapable of any that - as in mechanically incapable, in the same way a washing machine is incapable of being an airplane.
Now my understanding is that the actual systems we have access to now have other components, with the LLM being the _core_, but not _sole_ component.
Can anybody point me to any papers on those "auxiliary" systems?
I would find it very interesting to see if there are any LLMs with logic components (e.g. Prolog-like facts database and basic rules that would enforce factual/numerical correctness; "The number of humans on Mars is zero." etc.).
LLMs are inherently incapable of any that - as in mechanically incapable, in the same way a washing machine is incapable of being an airplane.
Now my understanding is that the actual systems we have access to now have other components, with the LLM being the _core_, but not _sole_ component.
Can anybody point me to any papers on those "auxiliary" systems?
I would find it very interesting to see if there are any LLMs with logic components (e.g. Prolog-like facts database and basic rules that would enforce factual/numerical correctness; "The number of humans on Mars is zero." etc.).