这场争论直击 AI 领域最根本的信任问题——LLM 的推理到底是不是真的？做 AI 研究或关注模型能力的读者，看完会对当前评测和结论有更深反思。
Gary Marcus 在 X 上质疑 Dwarkesh Patel 关于 LLM 能真正推理的说法，认为其缺乏可证伪性和证据。Patel 此前表示 LLM 确实能推理，但有时也会模仿推理过程，Marcus 指出这种双重标准难以令人信服。这场争论触及 AI 领域核心问题：LLM 的推理能力是真实的还是高级模仿。Marcus 要求提供可验证的证据，而非仅凭直觉断言。
what does this even mean, @dwarkesh_sp, “the real deal”? is it even a falsifiable conjecture? what’s...
what does this even mean, @dwarkesh_sp , “the real deal”? is it even a falsifiable conjecture? what’s the evidence? and if you can agree that “If you ask an LLM a question it can't answer, sometimes it will just try to imitate reasoning without doing it”, why acknowledge the possibility of imitation when it gets wrong but not when it gets it right? seems like a double standard? Dwarkesh Patel @dwarkesh_sp Whatever AI sceptics say, LLMs really can reason. They're not just doing an imitation that looks like reasoning, it's the real deal. But even though they are able to reason, sometimes they won't! If you ask an LLM a question it can't answer, sometimes it will just try to imitate reasoning without doing it. The chain of thought looks basically indistinguishable from actual reasoning. But under the hood something very different is going on. @TrentonBricken talked with me about what work on circuits inside LLMs has revealed: Your browser does not support the video tag. 🔗 View on Twitter 🔗 View Quoted Tweet 💬 5 🔄 3 ❤️ 21 👀 4893 📊 6 ⚡