No, it does not reason anything. LLM "reasoning" is just an illusion.

When an LLM is "reasoning" it's just feeding its own output back into itself and giving it another go.

This is like saying chess engines don't actually "play" chess, even though they trounce grandmasters. It's a meaningless distinction, about words (think, reason, ..) that have no firm definitions.

This exactly. The proof is in the pudding. If AI pudding is as good as (or better than) human pudding, and you continue to complain about it anyway... You're just being biased and unreasonable.

And by the way, I don't think it's surprising that so many people are being unreasonable on this issue, there is a lot at stake and it's implications are transformative.

> Chess is a solved game. There is always a mathematically perfect move.

This is a good example of being confidently misinformed.

The best move is always a result of calculation. And the calculation can always go deeper or run on a stronger engine.

We know that chess can be solved, in theory. It absolutely isn't and probably will never be in practice. The necessary time and storage space doesn't exist.

Chess is absolutely not a solved game, outside of very limited situations like endgames. Just because a best move exists does not mean we (or even an engine) know what it is

Is that so different from brains?

Even if it is, this sounds like "this submarine doesn't actually swim" reasoning.