• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI
    Reaction

    Induction, not tool use, as the claimed divide between reasoning models and base LLMs

    A post argues that modern reasoning models infer instructions for producing an answer, rather than intuiting the answer directly.

    FC
    AK
    PM
    5 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    A post argues that modern reasoning models predict instructions or a reasoning chain that produces an answer, and that this shift—not symbolic tool use—is what distinguishes them from base LLMs. It claims the shift gives reasoning models substantial fluid intelligence while base LLMs have almost none. The post says similarly sized or smaller reasoning models saturated the ARC 1 benchmark in 2025, while LLM performance remained around 10–15% as of October 2026.

    Combined views

    53.8K

    5 Sources, first seen 10h ago

    Combined views

    53.8K

    5 Sources, first seen 10h ago

    896 likes
    10h ago
    first seen 10h ago
    896 likes
    78 comments
    472 saves
    93 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Featured Source
    78 comments
    472 saves
    93 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    #17

    Today's Rank

    #17

    5 Sources

    @fcholletThe critical distinction between base LLMs (2024 and earlier) and modern LRMs is not symbolic tool use. It's the switch from a transductive paradigm (intuit the answer to the query) to an inductive paradigm (intuit the program/instructions that produce the answer to the query). They're trained to be inductive, and they perform test-time induction, i.e. test-time prediction of a NL program / reasoning chain. This unlocks entirely new capabilities -- in particular fluid intelligence. Base LLMs, to this day, have ~0 fluid intelligence. LRMs have substantial levels of fluid intelligence. The performance of LLMs on ARC 1 (a benchmark from 2019) remains ~10-15% today. Scaling them up by a factor ~100,000x got them from 0% to 10%. Meanwhile LRMs the same size or smaller saturated ARC 1 in 2025.
    @PMinervini@fchollet "NL program"
    @BlackHC@fchollet One thing that is confusing is that modern LLMs are equal to base LLMs in architecture and harness essentially. It's only the weights that are different (and post training obviously)
    @Zergylord@fchollet wtf is a LRM?

    5 Sources

    @fcholletThe critical distinction between base LLMs (2024 and earlier) and modern LRMs is not symbolic tool use. It's the switch from a transductive paradigm (intuit the answer to the query) to an inductive paradigm (intuit the program/instructions that produce the answer to the query). They're trained to be inductive, and they perform test-time induction, i.e. test-time prediction of a NL program / reasoning chain. This unlocks entirely new capabilities -- in particular fluid intelligence. Base LLMs, to this day, have ~0 fluid intelligence. LRMs have substantial levels of fluid intelligence. The performance of LLMs on ARC 1 (a benchmark from 2019) remains ~10-15% today. Scaling them up by a factor ~100,000x got them from 0% to 10%. Meanwhile LRMs the same size or smaller saturated ARC 1 in 2025.
    @PMinervini@fchollet "NL program"
    @BlackHC@fchollet One thing that is confusing is that modern LLMs are equal to base LLMs in architecture and harness essentially. It's only the weights that are different (and post training obviously)
    @Zergylord@fchollet wtf is a LRM?