Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
Posts
GPT-4o: The study debunks the myth that GPT models exhibit human-like reasoning and emphasizes that their reasoning is pattern-based rather than conceptual.

GPT-4o: The study debunks the myth that GPT models exhibit human-like reasoning and emphasizes that their reasoning is pattern-based rather than conceptual.

While these models can mimic reasoning in familiar scenarios, their brittleness on modified problems suggests they are not yet suitable for autonomous decision-making in high-stakes fields.

Pascal Hetzscholdt
February 25, 2025

Asking ChatGPT-4o: Please read the article “Why GPT can’t think like us” as well as the associated paper “Evaluating the Robustness of Analogical Reasoning in GPT Models” and list the most surprising, controversial and valuable statements and findings. Explain why these are important to AI developers and AI users and how the lessons learned should be applied.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Key Findings and Insights from the Articles

Based on the article "Why GPT can’t think like us" and the paper "Evaluating the Robustness of Analogical Reasoning in GPT Models", here are the most surprising, controversial, and valuable findings:

1. Most Surprising Findings

GPT-4's reasoning ability is highly dependent on surface-level cues and not genuine abstract understanding.
- While GPT models appear to perform well on analogy tasks, subtle modifications cause their performance to collapse.
- Example: In digit-matrix problems, simply changing the position of the missing number dramatically reduced GPT’s accuracy, while humans performed consistently well.
GPT-4 exhibits a strong bias toward selecting the first answer when evaluating story analogies.
- Unlike humans, who are unaffected by answer order, GPT-4 disproportionately chooses the first option when presented with two choices.
- This indicates a bias in the model's decision-making process that could have real-world consequences (e.g., biased legal or medical recommendations).
Paraphrasing a story affects GPT-4's ability to recognize analogies.
- When the correct answer in a story analogy problem was reworded but preserved the underlying causal structure, GPT-4’s performance dropped significantly, whereas humans remained stable.
- This suggests GPT relies on linguistic patterns rather than deep conceptual understanding.

2. Most Controversial Findings

The claim that GPT-4 shows "emergent analogical reasoning" is misleading.
- Previous studies suggested that GPT-3 and GPT-4 could reason by analogyat a human level.
- However, the robustness tests in this study show that GPT’s success was largely pattern-based, not conceptual, contradicting the earlier claims.
- This challenges the idea that LLMs "think" in a human-like way, which is a key claim by AI developers promoting these systems for decision-making.
Large language models may not generalize reasoning tasks as well as previously believed.
- Even when given fictional alphabets (i.e., rearranged letter sequences), humans maintained performance while GPT models struggled significantly.
- This suggests that LLMs do not robustly generalize knowledge beyond what they have memorized.
The need to "count" undermines AI’s analogy-making.
- A major counter-argument presented by defenders of GPT-4's reasoning ability is that the letter-string analogy failures arise because LLMs lack the ability to count positions properly (e.g., understanding the sequence a, b, c, d, → a, b, c, e in an unfamiliar alphabet).
- However, the authors of the study argue that humans don’t need to count explicitly to understand analogies, suggesting that AI’s failures are more fundamental than just a lack of numerical precision.

3. Most Valuable Lessons for AI Developers and Users

AI needs better robustness testing before being used in high-stakes decisions.
- AI models are already being used in education, law, healthcare, and finance.
- The study highlights that current GPT models can make unreliable or biased judgments based on superficial linguistic cues.
- Developers should implement rigorous robustness testing, particularly for applications that require abstract reasoning.
LLMs should be evaluated on out-of-distribution tasks, not just benchmark tests.
- GPT models excel when tested on familiar analogy formats but fail when tested on unseen variations.
- This means benchmarks may be overestimating AI’s reasoning abilities.
- Future evaluations should stress-test AI systems with counterfactual and paraphrased problems to ensure real-world reliability.
Biases in AI responses must be addressed, especially in decision-making applications.
- GPT-4’s answer-order bias and over-reliance on surface-level detailspose risks for real-world deployment.
- Example: In a legal case, an AI summarizing two opposing arguments might consistently favor the first argument presented, regardless of merit.
- AI developers should explicitly test for these biases and create countermeasures (e.g., randomizing order of answer choices).
Multimodal AI systems may need additional cognitive architectures.
- Human reasoning involves deliberate thought, metacognition, and adaptability.
- GPT models lack metacognitive reflection, meaning they don’t “know” when they don’t know.
- Potential solution: AI systems should incorporate explicit reasoning modules or even meta-learning techniques to improve their ability to detect and address reasoning failures.

How These Lessons Should Be Applied

✅ For AI Developers:

Move beyond benchmarking on pre-existing tasks and test models on variations of known tasks to ensure robust generalization.
Implement order-randomization techniques to reduce bias in AI decision-making.
Investigate metacognition—can AI models learn to recognize when they are unsure or making errors?

✅ For AI Users (Businesses, Policymakers, Educators):

Be cautious about AI-generated decisions in sensitive areas (e.g., legal cases, medical diagnostics, hiring processes).
Use AI models as assistive tools, not as final decision-makers, given their limitations in abstract reasoning.
If deploying AI in critical applications, demand transparency from AI vendors about robustness and bias mitigation strategies.

Final Takeaway

The study debunks the myth that GPT models exhibit human-like reasoning and emphasizes that their reasoning is pattern-based rather than conceptual. While these models can mimic reasoning in familiar scenarios, their brittleness on modified problems suggests they are not yet suitable for autonomous decision-making in high-stakes fields.

If AI is to be trusted in real-world reasoning tasks, it must not only provide correct answers on standard tests but also demonstrate resilience to variations, paraphrasing, and counterfactual changes.