This thing that people are calling “reasoning” is more like rendering to me really, or multi pass rendering. We’re just refining the render, there’s no reasoning involved.
replies(8):
A little context about you:
- person
- has hands, reads HN
These few state variables are enough to generate a believable enough frame in your rendering.
If the rendering doesn’t look believable to you, you modify state variables to make the render more believable, eg:
Context:
- person
- with hands
- incredulous demeanor
- reading HN
Now I can render you more accurately based on your “reasoning”, but truly I never needed all that data to see you.
Reasoning as we know it could just be a mechanism to fill in gaps in obviously sparse data (we absolutely do not have all the data to render reality accurately, you are seeing an illusion). Go reason about it all you want.
If not: what am I intended to take away from this? What is its relevance to my comment?
I think it is interesting what actions cannot be done by humans.
Look, why have game developers spent so much time lazy loading parts of the game world? Very rarely do they just load the whole world, even in 2025. See, the worlds get bigger, so even as the tech gets better, we will always lazy load worlds in.
It’s a context issue right? Developers have just recently been given this thing called “context”.
But yeah man, why do we think just because we walked from our house to the supermarket that this reality didn’t lazy load things. That’s how programmers have been doing it all along …
Anyways
I like this version for at least two reasons:
1. It is 100% compliant with large quantities of scientific findings (psychology and neuroscience), whreas I believe yours has a conservation of mass problem at least
2. Everyone dislikes it at least in certain scenarios (say, when reference is made to it during an object level disagreement)