This study draws attention to a crucial contradiction in artificial intelligence: the theoretical expressiveness of Transformer-like models and their ability to reason in real-world scenarios. This paper shows that deep neural networks and Transformers are consistently unsuccessful in practice on basic, structured reasoning tasks, despite the fact that they are formally proven to be Turing-complete, which means that they can theoretically simulate any Turing machine and solve any computable problem with polynomial resources. A "height comparison" job serves as an example of this, in which the model must combine multiple provided facts to infer a relationship.This study draws attention to a crucial contradiction in artificial intelligence: the theoretical expressiveness of Transformer-like models and their ability to reason in real-world scenarios. This paper shows that deep neural networks and Transformers are consistently unsuccessful in practice on basic, structured reasoning tasks, despite the fact that they are formally proven to be Turing-complete, which means that they can theoretically simulate any Turing machine and solve any computable problem with polynomial resources. A "height comparison" job serves as an example of this, in which the model must combine multiple provided facts to infer a relationship.

The Basic Reasoning Test That Separates Real Intelligence from AI

2025/11/05 21:00

Abstract and 1. Introduction

1.1 Syllogisms composition

1.2 Hardness of long compositions

1.3 Hardness of global reasoning

1.4 Our contributions

  1. Results on the local reasoning barrier

    2.1 Defining locality and auto-regressive locality

    2.2 Transformers require low locality: formal results

    2.3 Agnostic scratchpads cannot break the locality

  2. Scratchpads to break the locality

    3.1 Educated scratchpad

    3.2 Inductive Scratchpads

  3. Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References

A. Further related literature

B. Additional experiments

C. Experiment and implementation details

D. Proof of Theorem 1

E. Comment on Lemma 1

F. Discussion on circuit complexity connections

G. More experiments with ChatGPT

F Discussion on circuit complexity connections

\

\

\ On the other hand, with appropriate setup, deep neural nets, recurrent neural nets, and Transformers with scratchpads are Turing complete. Furthermore, they can simulate a Turing machine using resources polynomial in the number of steps the Turing machine runs for and the input length. So, with appropriate parameters these can efficiently solve any problem that it is possible to solve efficiently. A little more precisely, given a neural net where the input bits are 0 or 1, it is fairly easy to set a neuron to compute an AND, OR, or NOT of one or more previous values, so any circuit can be converted into a neural net of at most equal size. Any efficient computation can be performed by a polynomial-sized circuit, so it can also be performed by a polynomial-sized deep neural net. Also, given a Turing machine in a state where all entries in its tape that are more than n steps away from the head or heads are in their initial state, there is a circuit of depth O(1) and size O(n) that computes the next state of the Turing machine. That means that running a Turing machine for T steps on an input of length n can be simulated by a recurrent neural net of size O(T + n) and T recurrences. Conversely, given a neural net with a reasonable activation function and sub-exponential edge weights, one can estimate the output of each neuron to within an exponentially small error in time polynomial in the size of the net.

\

\

\

\

G More experiments with ChatGPT

Height comparison. For n ≥ 1, we consider 3n + 2 people having different heights. We give the model 3n + 1 pairwise relations between the consecutive people (in order of height) in a random order. Using this information, one can understand the order of the heights for all people by combining the given information. We ask the model about the relation between person n + 1 and 2n + 2. An example for n = 1 is

\ “Omar is taller than Sara. Vlad is taller than David. Farah is taller than Omar. Sara is taller than Vlad. Is Omar taller than Vlad?"

\ where the answer is true. Note that to answer this question correctly one has to combine at least n + 1 relations. Thus, the locality of the task is always larger than n. (The exact locality would depend on the tokenization.) We found out that ChatGPT (GPT3.5) fails at this task even for n = 1 (simplest case). Note that when working with the GPT3.5 model we used the following prompt so that the model is able to use chain-of-thought reasoning: "You can reason if you want but make sure to include yes/no in your answer." Interestingly, GPT4 performs much better than GPT3.5. We also observed that it is often the case that when GPT4 answers correctly to the question, it orders people based on their height, very similar to what we do in the scratchpad of the graph task. Motivated by this, we tested one more setting where we prompted GPT4 with "Answer only with a yes or no." to avoid the chain-of-thought reasoning. In this case, as expected, the model couldn’t solve the height comparison task for n > 1. The results are shown in Figure 11.

\ Figure 11: For complexity n we have 3n + 2 people and there are n people between the two names we query (see example above). We found out that ChatGPT(3.5) can hardly go beyond the random baseline on this task even for n = 1 while GPT4 performs much better. However, if GPT4 does not use CoT reasoning, its performance would be near random for n > 1. Note that we used 1000 examples for each value of n.

\

:::info Authors:

(1) Emmanuel Abbe, Apple and EPFL;

(2) Samy Bengio, Apple;

(3) Aryo Lotf, EPFL;

(4) Colin Sandon, EPFL;

(5) Omid Saremi, Apple.

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 license.

:::

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Akash Network’s Strategic Move: A Crucial Burn for AKT’s Future

Akash Network’s Strategic Move: A Crucial Burn for AKT’s Future

BitcoinWorld Akash Network’s Strategic Move: A Crucial Burn for AKT’s Future In the dynamic world of decentralized computing, exciting developments are constantly shaping the future. Today, all eyes are on Akash Network, the innovative supercloud project, as it proposes a significant change to its tokenomics. This move aims to strengthen the value of its native token, AKT, and further solidify its position in the competitive blockchain space. The community is buzzing about a newly submitted governance proposal that could introduce a game-changing Burn Mint Equilibrium (BME) model. What is the Burn Mint Equilibrium (BME) for Akash Network? The core of this proposal revolves around a concept called Burn Mint Equilibrium, or BME. Essentially, this model is designed to create a balance in the token’s circulating supply by systematically removing a portion of tokens from existence. For Akash Network, this means burning an amount of AKT that is equivalent to the U.S. dollar value of fees paid by network users. Fee Conversion: When users pay for cloud services on the Akash Network, these fees are typically collected in various cryptocurrencies or stablecoins. AKT Equivalence: The proposal suggests converting the U.S. dollar value of these collected fees into an equivalent amount of AKT. Token Burn: This calculated amount of AKT would then be permanently removed from circulation, or ‘burned’. This mechanism creates a direct link between network utility and token supply reduction. As more users utilize the decentralized supercloud, more AKT will be burned, potentially impacting the token’s scarcity and value. Why is This Proposal Crucial for AKT Holders? For anyone holding AKT, or considering investing in the Akash Network ecosystem, this proposal carries significant weight. Token burning mechanisms are often viewed as a positive development because they can lead to increased scarcity. When supply decreases while demand remains constant or grows, the price per unit tends to increase. Here are some key benefits: Increased Scarcity: Burning tokens reduces the total circulating supply of AKT. This makes each remaining token potentially more valuable over time. Demand-Supply Dynamics: The BME model directly ties the burning of AKT to network usage. Higher adoption of the Akash Network supercloud translates into more fees, and thus more AKT burned. Long-Term Value Proposition: By creating a deflationary pressure, the proposal aims to enhance AKT’s long-term value, making it a more attractive asset for investors and long-term holders. This strategic move demonstrates a commitment from the Akash Network community to optimize its tokenomics for sustainable growth and value appreciation. How Does BME Impact the Decentralized Supercloud Mission? Beyond token value, the BME proposal aligns perfectly with the broader mission of the Akash Network. As a decentralized supercloud, Akash provides a marketplace for cloud computing resources, allowing users to deploy applications faster, more efficiently, and at a lower cost than traditional providers. The BME model reinforces this utility. Consider these impacts: Network Health: A stronger AKT token can incentivize more validators and providers to secure and contribute resources to the network, improving its overall health and resilience. Ecosystem Growth: Enhanced token value can attract more developers and projects to build on the Akash Network, fostering a vibrant and diverse ecosystem. User Incentive: While users pay fees, the potential appreciation of AKT could indirectly benefit those who hold the token, creating a circular economy within the supercloud. This proposal is not just about burning tokens; it’s about building a more robust, self-sustaining, and economically sound decentralized cloud infrastructure for the future. What Are the Next Steps for the Akash Network Community? As a governance proposal, the BME model will now undergo a period of community discussion and voting. This is a crucial phase where AKT holders and network participants can voice their opinions, debate the merits, and ultimately decide on the future direction of the project. Transparency and community engagement are hallmarks of decentralized projects like Akash Network. Challenges and Considerations: Implementation Complexity: Ensuring the burning mechanism is technically sound and transparent will be vital. Community Consensus: Achieving broad agreement within the diverse Akash Network community is key for successful adoption. The outcome of this vote will significantly shape the tokenomics and economic model of the Akash Network, influencing its trajectory in the rapidly evolving decentralized cloud landscape. The proposal to introduce a Burn Mint Equilibrium model represents a bold and strategic step for Akash Network. By directly linking network usage to token scarcity, the project aims to create a more resilient and valuable AKT token, ultimately strengthening its position as a leading decentralized supercloud provider. This move underscores the project’s commitment to innovative tokenomics and sustainable growth, promising an exciting future for both users and investors in the Akash Network ecosystem. It’s a clear signal that Akash is actively working to enhance its value proposition and maintain its competitive edge in the decentralized future. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. What is the main goal of the Burn Mint Equilibrium (BME) proposal for Akash Network? The primary goal is to adjust the circulating supply of AKT tokens by burning a portion of network fees, thereby creating deflationary pressure and potentially enhancing the token’s long-term value and scarcity. 2. How will the amount of AKT to be burned be determined? The proposal suggests burning an amount of AKT equivalent to the U.S. dollar value of fees paid by users on the Akash Network for cloud services. 3. What are the potential benefits for AKT token holders? Token holders could benefit from increased scarcity of AKT, which may lead to higher demand and appreciation in value over time, especially as network usage grows. 4. How does this proposal relate to the overall mission of Akash Network? The BME model reinforces the Akash Network‘s mission by creating a stronger, more economically robust ecosystem. A healthier token incentivizes network participants, fostering growth and stability for the decentralized supercloud. 5. What is the next step for this governance proposal? The proposal will undergo a period of community discussion and voting by AKT token holders. The community’s decision will determine if the BME model is implemented on the Akash Network. If you found this article insightful, consider sharing it with your network! Your support helps us bring more valuable insights into the world of decentralized technology. Stay informed and help spread the word about the exciting developments happening within Akash Network. To learn more about the latest crypto market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping decentralized cloud solutions price action. This post Akash Network’s Strategic Move: A Crucial Burn for AKT’s Future first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/22 21:35