I have not read the essay, yet but when 'we' talk about
> reasoning errors,
we do not mean reason in some natural, universal, scientific kind of sense, right?
Given that the training data can only contain human reasoning and computational logic, reason in the sense of LLM's can only be interpreted as "rational facts AND nonsense humans made up to create systems that would support consumerism-driven sanity", correct?????
Please understand, I'm not mocking, I'm genuinely interested
in the ways human reasoning radiates into the code LLM's learn while they realize (the computational equivalent of a new-born's eyes opening) their cognitive (&) sensory
(that which triggers/causes/elicits/prompts/influences) their origins (every whatever-second/moment of their existence).
Given that the training data can only contain human reasoning and computational logic, reason in the sense of LLM's can only be interpreted as "rational facts AND nonsense humans made up to create systems that would support consumerism-driven sanity", correct?????
Please understand, I'm not mocking, I'm genuinely interested in the ways human reasoning radiates into the code LLM's learn while they realize (the computational equivalent of a new-born's eyes opening) their cognitive (&) sensory (that which triggers/causes/elicits/prompts/influences) their origins (every whatever-second/moment of their existence).