30 pointsby Brajeshwar5 hours ago12 comments
  • ionioagnioan hour ago
    I thought it was pretty well understood amongst experts that trying to interpret so-called "chain of thought" is anthopomorphization and that the actual "thought process" of models is already opaque.

    https://arxiv.org/html/2504.09762v2

  • resiros3 hours ago
    It's a matter of time until cot will happen in latent space. It just makes more sense. We as human don't do all of our thinking in words.
    • T3OU-7368 minutes ago
      Nor are our thought processes inspectable.

      My own helacipusly amateur take is that given the speed of and, intentional or otherwise, access to various things that the models are granted, it does seem super-useful to maintain the inspectability of chain of reasoning which lead to actions taken (and other artifacts) by the model.

      If things become inscrutable, they are on the path of being ineffable.

  • amlutoan hour ago
    Anthropic seems like they, at least on some vague philosophical level, have the opposite view. They are very explicit about trying not to let the CoT enter directly into their RL process, and they encrypt the CoT traces (and recently further nerfed their API surface) to make it as difficult as practical for their customers to have any idea what their model is thinking.
  • mehmetoguzderin4 hours ago
    TBH sooner or later explaining the opaque recurrence with extrinsic logic will be more sustainable, and already there is a need for that with existing models. Human language readable chains of thought are just a false sense of security, and open models already emit pretty unreadable ones at times while doing the right thing based on it (since policy optimization loops with synthetic data through reinforcement learning).
  • dimatter4 hours ago
    Clickbait. Recursion in layers wont effect CoT.
  • percentcer2 hours ago
    Relying on CoT (and, similarly, asking the model to explain its actions) for analysis has always seemed pretty silly (naive?) to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Why do are we so committed to preserving it? And do non-textual models provide some similar form of tracing?
  • dang2 hours ago
    Related ongoing thread:

    How concerned should we be about Astra's recurrent architecture? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49553321

  • supriyo-biswas2 hours ago
    Is there a more technical source that tells what is being done? I assume it's about reasoning in latent space e.g. the coconut paper[1]?

    I disagree with the "experts" there, as if latent-space reasoning will only cause proper interpretability research rather than taking the CoT as gospel[2].

    Give me that any day over the constant "you will be abolished to the permanent underclass!" talk coming from billionaires.

    Edit: (A better discussion is apparently here[3])

    [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06769

    [2] https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-most-forbidden-technique

    [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49553321

  • metalliqaz2 hours ago
    I'm not an expert on LLMs but it isn't clear to me why it is a problem to keep reasoning inside the layers of the model when the internal state of the model has never been readable text.
    • HarHarVeryFunnyan hour ago
      It's a matter of degree not a black and while traceable/untraceable difference.

      With a regular N-layer transformer you get a token every N-layers.

      With a looped transformer there is no guarantee how often you get a token, unless you go out of your way to limit looping.

      OpenAI's Jakub Pachocki says the "computational graph depth" (number of transformer layers passed though) for Astra is currently never more than 2x that of GPT-4, and does express concern that traceability will suffer if this is not controlled.

    • robrenaud2 hours ago
      The number of steps between token outputs is increasing.

      I don't actually think this is a problem, but it is a further step towards inscrutability.

    • CamperBob22 hours ago
      Agreed. Anyone who thought CoT output was a reliable guide to the actual reasoning process taking place was fooling themselves from day 1.

      A few hours spent playing with DeepSeek R1 should have been enough to dispel that illusion, watching it talk itself out of the right answer in its CoT (or talk itself into the wrong one) and still emit the right answer in its response to the user.

  • gavinray2 hours ago
    "Hobble the model's reasoning abilities so that us mere mortals can attempt to understand."

    Reminds me of that short film of a dystopian future, where they place physical and mental impairment devices on humans to ensure they all have roughly equal ability:

      > "2081, a 25-minute adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s short story "Harrison Bergeron." In this future society, a Handicapper General enforces absolute equality by imposing artificial physical and mental handicaps—such as weights for the strong and noise-inducing earpieces for the intelligent"
  • ActorNightly4 hours ago
    I mean, its literally just more efficient loop of model generating reasoning text, for it to be fed back as context. There is nothing groundbreaking here. At the end of the day, its all just search.
    • CamperBob22 hours ago
      Search that can find novel math proofs?
  • AlexErrantan hour ago
    [dead]