The author makes this assertion about LLMs rather casually:
>They don’t engage in logical reasoning.
This is still a hotly debated question, but at this point the burden of proof is on the detractors. (To put it mildly, the famous "stochastic parrot" paper has not aged well.)
The claim above is certainly not something that should be stated as fact to a naive audience (i.e. the authors' intended audience in this case). Simply asserting it as they have done -- without acknowledging that many experts disagree -- undermines the authors' credibility to those who are less naive.
>They don’t engage in logical reasoning.
This is still a hotly debated question, but at this point the burden of proof is on the detractors. (To put it mildly, the famous "stochastic parrot" paper has not aged well.)
The claim above is certainly not something that should be stated as fact to a naive audience (i.e. the authors' intended audience in this case). Simply asserting it as they have done -- without acknowledging that many experts disagree -- undermines the authors' credibility to those who are less naive.