We are hitting a wall trying to force transformers to do actual logic [D]
Summary
The author expresses frustration with the industry's reliance on prompt engineering and scaling to fix logical reasoning deficits in transformer-based LLMs, arguing that these probabilistic models fundamentally lack the architecture for deterministic logic.
Similar Articles
The brute force approach to ai logic is genuinely hitting a ceiling
The article argues that autoregressive language models cannot achieve true understanding of formal mathematics and need verification methods, citing systems like Aleph that rely on strict mathematical proof.
Why scaling alone will not give us rational AI
This article argues that fundamental architectural limitations, not scaling deficits, prevent current LLMs from achieving true rationality—the ability to recognize and switch frames—citing empirical failures like the reversal curse and frame-transfer issues, and suggests that scaling alone may not bridge this gap.
The Transformer Pill
A reflection on the broad implications of transformer architectures beyond LLMs, including potential impacts on linguistics, genetics, and causal modeling, comparing their significance to the Haber-Bosch process.
@swyx: co-sign. a very handy mental framework for what kinds of learning transformers do well today, and why it runs into limi…
The article discusses a mental framework for understanding what transformers learn well and their limitations, arguing that scaling current paradigms may be inefficient compared to approaches that hypothesize and seek truth, referencing the need for adversarial world models and reinforcement learning.
When transformers learn "impossible" languages, what do they learn?
This paper investigates how transformer language models learn 'impossible' languages with unnatural properties, finding that while grammatical sensitivity degrades gradually, generative production shows pronounced failures, suggesting a linking hypothesis for non-attestation.