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.
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.