The linked paper proposes an obvious-in-retrospect form of data augmentation: shuffle the order of the premises, so that the model can’t rely on spurious patterns. That’s kinda neat.
In other words, language models are advanced pattern recognizers that mimic logical reasoning without genuinely understanding the underlying logic.
We might need to shift our focus on the training phase for better performance?
To be honest, even humans rarely get above this level of understanding for many tasks. I don't think most people really understand math above the level of following the recipes they learned by rote in school.
Or beyond following the runbook in their IT department's documentation system.
And when the recipe doesn't work, they are helpless to figure out why.
There’s currently 0% chance of “understanding” happening at any point with this technology.
Understanding in the "have mental model of the world, apply it, derive thoughts from that model, derive words from thoughts" pattern is a thing they don't do the way we do.
But understanding of some kinds CAN be encoded into tokens and their relationships. They're clearly capable of novel, correct inferences, that are not directly contained within their training sets.
I all-but-guarantee my "My fish suffocated when I brought it to space, even though I gave it a space suit filled with pure water, why?" test case is not something it was explicitly trained on, but it correctly inferred "Because fish need oxygenated water"
I like the claim and I'd guess it's true but this seems like a weird way to introduce it.