this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
830 points (95.4% liked)

Technology

71396 readers
3416 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

LOOK MAA I AM ON FRONT PAGE

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (13 children)

That indicates that this particular model does not follow instructions, not that it is architecturally fundamentally incapable.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (12 children)

Not "This particular model". Frontier LRMs s OpenAI’s o1/o3,DeepSeek-R, Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, and Gemini Thinking.

The paper shows that Large Reasoning Models as defined today cannot interpret instructions. Their architecture does not allow it.

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (11 children)

those particular models. It does not prove the architecture doesn't allow it at all. It's still possible that this is solvable with a different training technique, and none of those are using the right one. that's what they need to prove wrong.

this proves the issue is widespread, not fundamental.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Is "model" not defined as architecture+weights? Those models certainly don't share the same architecture. I might just be confused about your point though

[–] communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It is, but this did not prove all architectures cannot reason, nor did it prove that all sets of weights cannot reason.

essentially they did not prove the issue is fundamental. And they have a pretty similar architecture, they're all transformers trained in a similar way. I would not say they have different architectures.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)