Did you only read the title? Because the abstract gives you a pretty good idea of what they mean when they say reason. It's pretty easy to understand. No need to immediately call bullshit just because of a minor semantic disagreement.
>ThEY DON'T tHiNk. They'rE JuSt STochAStiC pARrotS. It'S not ReAL AGi.
It doesn't even matter if these claims are true or not. They're missing the point of the conversation and the paper. Reason is a perfectly valid word to use. So is think. If you ask it a question and then follow up with 'think carefully' or 'explain carefully'. You'll get the same response.
inb4 AcTUALLy LlMS Can'T do aNYtHIng CaRefUlly BECaUse pRogRAms ARen'T caRefUl
>ThEY DON'T tHiNk. They'rE JuSt STochAStiC pARrotS. It'S not ReAL AGi.
It doesn't even matter if these claims are true or not. They're missing the point of the conversation and the paper. Reason is a perfectly valid word to use. So is think. If you ask it a question and then follow up with 'think carefully' or 'explain carefully'. You'll get the same response.
inb4 AcTUALLy LlMS Can'T do aNYtHIng CaRefUlly BECaUse pRogRAms ARen'T caRefUl