GenAi v “Thinking” & “Reasoning”
There is a tendency for deep arguments to rapidly wander into shallow arguments about word definitions. With lots of arguments continuing about the nature of generative Ai, the obvious problemsome1 word is “intelligence”. I’d like to say that what are being called “AI” are not intelligent but I don’t have a clear meaning for what intelligence is. We all get that though and it is also clear, that whatever Chat-GPT is doing isn’t what goes on in people’s brains.
Of course, there is no good reason why it should be. The whole history of machines is one of taking things a human did and automating the functional result of what the human (or animal) did. Sometimes, the process the machine follows is close to what a human does, and in other cases not. A sewing machine, uses a special kind of stitch process that makes sense for a sewing machine. A car resembles a horse drawn carriage only vaguely and we don’t expect the engine to have the same parts as a horse.
Ai-boosterisms2 likes to pretend that these services are doing the same thing or an equivalent (but even better!) thing as a human brain, but it is more semantics than substance with the word “intelligence”. We can, collectively, extend our use of the term to cover Claude (or god-forbid Grok) or we can choose not to. Intellectually, I am open to the idea of forms of intelligence that are very different to what humans have, but I find the current technology does not fit with my vibes on that word, and that’s all we’ve got.
However, there are words that orbit “intelligence” that are not synonyms but are closely related. How do I feel about those words?
“Think” and “thinking” is an interesting one. For me it presupposes a degree of intelligence, but I don’t find it odd to say that a dog or a bird is “thinking”, in that gap between perception and action. So, for me at least, I don’t regard “thinking” as necessarily being a human-level act. How about computers? Colloquially, I’ve often taken to describe some delay from a program while a data-intensive process is completed as the machine “thinking about it”. That’s an analogy though and a degree of personification that I know is false. That a big SQL query on a database takes time is not at all like a person puzzling over something. I’d say “think”, “thinking” and “thoughts” about generative Ai is a way of rhetorically assuming what still needs to be proven i.e. that the machine can be called “intelligent”.
But let’s take a step further out and consider “reasoning”. This word is connected to “reason” which might be taken as synonym for “intelligence”, but it has more specific connotations. “Reasoning” implies a process. When I reason, I am conscious of my reasoning but consciousness is not intrinsic to the process. For example, when I cook I am conscious that I am cooking, but if I could make a machine that cooks, it wouldn’t need to be conscious, just complex.
Machines that can do reasoning tasks (or if we prefer, task that would require a human to reason if we got a human to do the task) are not new. A lot of artificial intelligence research in the past has been orientated around reasoning-like task such as playing formal games like chess, or creating mathematical proofs. Following deductive rules is not quite a synonym for “reasoning” but it’s close in a way that the other words I’ve discussed are. Such rule following behaviour is something computers can do, and the idea that somehow logical thought can be mechanised pre-dates computers.
Yes, but Large Language Models aren’t “reasoning” in the logic/deductive sense though, are they? LLMs are using a kind of stochastic, word sequence generation process based on vast statistical patterns captured from human examples. It is still mathematics but not mathematics that is analogous to logical deduction based on premises about the subject under consideration3. That’s all true or rather that WAS all true. In 2024, if you asked Chat-GPT things it mainly was doing the one very-big trick of solving the equivalent of vast multi-dimensional set of simultaneous equations about associations of words without any premises about the significance of those words.
Here I think we do have a bit of a gap between anti-genAi rhetoric and the current state of genAi. In 2024 it was easy to get Chat-GPT et al to beclown4 themselves by asking it basic problems, from counting letters in a word or comparing a kilo of feathers versus 2 kilos of gold. Many of those comical tricks no longer work. How come? As I mentioned before reasoning-models, in the sense of models intended to follow chains of logic etc, predate large language models. One early fix was to link up an LLM to a service like Wolfram-Alpha, an older service for solving maths and algebra problems online.
This is a powerful trick but still far from flawless. The language capacity of an LLM, process the words a human inputs into a query for a reasoning model, which does its stuff and serves back an answer, which the LLM expresses in words. That’s not how a human actually solves, say, a maths word problem but it is an the outline of it5.
So “reasoning”, is a trickier word. Unlike “intelligence” and “thinking” what current genAi is doing is closer in terms of my vibe-check to “reasoning”. The underlying mechanics is not the same (I don’t think my brain is doing tensor maths to find the next word I am using6) but it is at least sort of functionally similar.
Anyway, here is my word scorecard:
- Is genAi “intelligent”: no
- Do genAis “think”: no, not really
- Can genAis “reason”: maybe a bit of stretch but maybe yes
Anyway, I think if I solve a online crossword, I might be able to navigate to Betelgeuse.
- The spell checker is saying “problemsome” isn’t a word but I’m tired of “problematic”. To me problematic sounds like a 1950s machine for dispensing problems without the need of a shop assistant. ↩︎
- “boosterism” also is not a word the spell checker recognises. ↩︎
- There is still logic there but at deeper layer, just as there is logic in any computer program. ↩︎
- Oh come on, “beclown” is definitely a word. ↩︎
- You will see in problem solving literature that kind of word-to-maths-to-word structure for describing how we solve maths problems but it is intended as a simplification. Introspection about your own process will show that things can involve more back and forth. ↩︎
- But maybe it is which means you could repurpose a human brain to calculate general relativity problems for near-light speed navigation. Or maybe you can even if it isn’t, if we can map “find the next plausible word in a sentence” as a problem to a huge maths calculation for a computer than maybe it works vice-versa with however a human brain finds a word. ↩︎
Demian
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •M.S. Bellows, Jr.
in reply to Demian • • •Weird Socks
in reply to M.S. Bellows, Jr. • • •Fish Id Wardrobe ⁂
in reply to M.S. Bellows, Jr. • • •Licho
in reply to M.S. Bellows, Jr. • • •@msbellows destroying 80% of all wealth hits different when 1% owns most of it.
@dgodon @inthehands
Incessant
in reply to M.S. Bellows, Jr. • • •@msbellows @dgodon this seems to be the case. The problem isn't the "crash" , but rather they are preparing the next case of "too big to fail", and making the taxpayers bail them out.
This is the danger.
We already know they're over-allocated.
Demian
in reply to Incessant • • •@iveyline
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •reshared this
Frank Heijkamp, Su_G and Mim54 reshared this.
Nicole Parsons
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •The provenance of the money flooding into the AI bubble matters.
Fossil fuel private equity interests were hoping to use data centers as a way to keep its captive consumer markets. By any means necessary.
Fossil fuel money funds Yandex.
straitstimes.com/world/europe/…
Fossil fuel money funds Google & Peter Thiel.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
Fossil fuel money funds SpaceX.
fortuneindia.com/amp/story/bus…
Silicon Valley is funded by fossil fuels
cnbc.com/amp/2019/06/30/koch-n…
axios.com/2017/12/14/koch-trie…
1/
UK imposes sanctions on Russian 'shadow' ships and Yandex Bank
The Straits Timesreshared this
Solarbird, RiaResists❌ 👑, elala@nrw.social and Petr Skála reshared this.
Nicole Parsons
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •2/
desmog.com/2025/12/11/the-koch…
Fossil fuel money funds Bezos & Zuckerberg.
theverge.com/amazon/667916/jef…
bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
cybernews.com/ai-news/meta-dat…
Fossil fuel money funds Larry & David Ellison
americanprogress.org/article/p…
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Fossil fuel money funds Microsoft.
scroll.media/en/2025/09/15/mic…
forbes.com/sites/mattdurot/202…
Jeff Bezos makes his most ghoulish deal yet
Elizabeth Lopatto (The Verge)reshared this
elala@nrw.social and Petr Skála reshared this.
Petr Skála
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •RiaResists❌ 👑
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •Makes total sense.
And it allows big oil to continue destroying the planet. (🙄)
Petr Skála
in reply to Nicole Parsons • • •Big Ben
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •youtu.be/5hTMYk7orHw
Gojira - Mea Culpa (Ah! Ça ira!) [OFFICIAL VIDEO]
Gojira (YouTube)Fenix
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •Licho
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •@inthehands
Fardels Bear
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •768kB 🚴☕🌍
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •chx
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •Raglan Niall
in reply to chx • • •mathew
in reply to chx • • •@chx Find small-cap ETFs and ETFs focusing on stocks with a low but positive P/E ratio. That will automatically exclude all the AI bubble stocks. You'll still hurt when the crash comes, but much less.
There's also Defiance Large Cap ex-Mag 7 ETF (XMAG) which contains the S&P 500 minus Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and SpaceX.
Jan Wildeboer 😷
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •Coming Soon: Global Financial Stability Report, October 2026
International Monetary Fundelala@nrw.social reshared this.
Kristin Henry: artist. Runs vis.social.
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •Svavar the Neurozesty
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •The Bank of England has been saying this since at least July.
politico.eu/article/bank-of-en…
Bank of England warns an AI crash could plunge UK into recession
Elliot Gulliver-Needham (POLITICO)Poloniousmonk
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •World financial stability is already dead.
Start looking past it to whatever comes next.
🎀𝓀𝒶𝓃𝑒𝑒𝓁🎀
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •Stuart Longland (VK4MSL)
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •…meanwhile in breaking news.
Wish the sun to stand still 🌞
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •The US govt will end up bailing out a system for making people unemployed.
Watch.
Paul Cantrell
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •This is not a foregone conclusion unless we allow our own apathetic cynicism to make it so — but it is certainly a real danger against which we need to fight hard.
infosec.exchange/@tasket/11743…
Wish the sun to stand still 🌞
2026-10-14 01:47:52
reshared this
Sam Levine, Jeremy le fou and Marcos Dione reshared this.
🇺🇦 haxadecimal 🚫👑
in reply to Paul Cantrell • • •It will hurt, but the longer we have to wait for the crash, the worse it will be.