Top Mathematics discussions
NishMath
@machinelearning.apple.com
//
Apple researchers have released a study questioning the reasoning capabilities of advanced AI models, including Claude 3.7 and Deepseek-R1. The study challenges the notion that these Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) excel at complex problem-solving by simulating human thought processes, as originally intended. Researchers discovered that as the complexity of tasks increases, these models often perform worse and may even reduce their "thinking" efforts, contradicting expectations. The findings suggest a fundamental scaling limitation in the reasoning abilities of current AI models.
To investigate these limitations, the Apple team subjected several reasoning models to a series of classic puzzle environments: Tower of Hanoi, Checkers Jumping, River Crossing, and Blocks World. These puzzles allowed for controlled increases in complexity while maintaining consistent logical structures. The results revealed that standard language models, like Claude 3.7 without its "thinking" mode, outperformed reasoning models on simple tasks, demonstrating higher accuracy with lower token consumption. The reasoning models only showed an advantage at intermediate complexity levels, however, when the puzzles became highly complex, all models experienced a complete collapse in accuracy, even with ample computational resources.
The study's findings have significant implications for the artificial intelligence industry, particularly regarding the trust placed in reasoning models. The Apple researchers found that the behavior of these LLMs is "better explained by sophisticated pattern matching" and not formal reasoning. Apple is now left to face increasing pressure to respond to their AI competition, particularly with Apple Intelligence, which was debuted last year, not living up to developers expectations.
ImgSrc: mlr.cdn-apple.c
References :
To investigate these limitations, the Apple team subjected several reasoning models to a series of classic puzzle environments: Tower of Hanoi, Checkers Jumping, River Crossing, and Blocks World. These puzzles allowed for controlled increases in complexity while maintaining consistent logical structures. The results revealed that standard language models, like Claude 3.7 without its "thinking" mode, outperformed reasoning models on simple tasks, demonstrating higher accuracy with lower token consumption. The reasoning models only showed an advantage at intermediate complexity levels, however, when the puzzles became highly complex, all models experienced a complete collapse in accuracy, even with ample computational resources.
The study's findings have significant implications for the artificial intelligence industry, particularly regarding the trust placed in reasoning models. The Apple researchers found that the behavior of these LLMs is "better explained by sophisticated pattern matching" and not formal reasoning. Apple is now left to face increasing pressure to respond to their AI competition, particularly with Apple Intelligence, which was debuted last year, not living up to developers expectations.
ImgSrc: mlr.cdn-apple.c
Share:
References :
- THE DECODER: LLMs designed for reasoning, like Claude 3.7 and Deepseek-R1, are supposed to excel at complex problem-solving by simulating thought processes.
- PPC Land: Apple researchers challenge AI reasoning claims with systematic puzzle evaluation showing complete performance collapse.
- the-decoder.com: LLMs designed for reasoning, like Claude 3.7 and Deepseek-R1, are supposed to excel at complex problem-solving by simulating thought processes.
Classification:
- HashTags: #AIresearch #ScalingLimits #ReasoningModels
- Company: Apple
- Target: AI Models
- Attacker: Researchers
- Product: AI Models
- Feature: AI Reasoning
- Type: Research
- Severity: Informative