Let me stop you right there, friend. LLMs can't analyze anything, they can only pick words to make something that looks like what it was trained to replicate. No actual logic or reasoning is involved, just linguistic manipulation which sometimes correlates with reality.
I'm not one of the people who believes that LLMs are magic. They may not be anywhere near as good or capable as most people think they are, but Grok 4's reasoning capability combined with the access it has to Twitters API is still more than good enough for a simple, well-specified analysis task like this.
It's reasoning-based model broke down the task into a bunch of steps, explained what it was doing as it performed each step, including the reasoning behind it's search strategy and how it adapted the strategy as it went due to the amount of recent results which hit limits. After performing each step, and doing simple analysis of each batch of results that it found and processed, it then aggregated it's findings from each batch over time to confirm this.
Again, it doesn't do reasoning. The page on "reasoning" in xAI's docs gives no details about any logic model, just "thinking" about problems for longer and "step-by-step". But linguistic manipulation is still only linguistic manipulation no matter how "step-by-step" or how long it's done for.
How do you even know the steps it claims to be taking are in fact what it's doing? The original ChatGPT could also explain its "reasoning" to you, but it wasn't designed to reason and didn't have access to its own internal processes (which were just applying weights in a neural network) so anything you got was just a post hoc explanation based on nothing real.
If the outcome of it's actions it performs based on the "reasoning" it claims to have done aligns with the actions that you would have performed having actually done the same reasoning, then does it matter if the reasoning was actually done or if it just claimed to have done them? As long as it gives you enough key details along the way, along with the findings based on the actions it took due to the reasoning, then you can confirm it for yourself.
Of course it matters whether it did the reasoning it claims, since the results are determined by the method. Even if the results aren't affected in this case, that would be a rare exception. Any intermediate results it claims wouldn't be genuine intermediate results so couldn't in general be used by a human to reach the correct final result.
Let me stop you right there, friend. LLMs can't analyze anything, they can only pick words to make something that looks like what it was trained to replicate. No actual logic or reasoning is involved, just linguistic manipulation which sometimes correlates with reality.
I'm not one of the people who believes that LLMs are magic. They may not be anywhere near as good or capable as most people think they are, but Grok 4's reasoning capability combined with the access it has to Twitters API is still more than good enough for a simple, well-specified analysis task like this.
It's reasoning-based model broke down the task into a bunch of steps, explained what it was doing as it performed each step, including the reasoning behind it's search strategy and how it adapted the strategy as it went due to the amount of recent results which hit limits. After performing each step, and doing simple analysis of each batch of results that it found and processed, it then aggregated it's findings from each batch over time to confirm this.
Again, it doesn't do reasoning. The page on "reasoning" in xAI's docs gives no details about any logic model, just "thinking" about problems for longer and "step-by-step". But linguistic manipulation is still only linguistic manipulation no matter how "step-by-step" or how long it's done for.
How do you even know the steps it claims to be taking are in fact what it's doing? The original ChatGPT could also explain its "reasoning" to you, but it wasn't designed to reason and didn't have access to its own internal processes (which were just applying weights in a neural network) so anything you got was just a post hoc explanation based on nothing real.
If the outcome of it's actions it performs based on the "reasoning" it claims to have done aligns with the actions that you would have performed having actually done the same reasoning, then does it matter if the reasoning was actually done or if it just claimed to have done them? As long as it gives you enough key details along the way, along with the findings based on the actions it took due to the reasoning, then you can confirm it for yourself.
Of course it matters whether it did the reasoning it claims, since the results are determined by the method. Even if the results aren't affected in this case, that would be a rare exception. Any intermediate results it claims wouldn't be genuine intermediate results so couldn't in general be used by a human to reach the correct final result.