Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A very pro-AI account on both Bluesky and X posted about a "disturbing" Stanford paper on LLMs' failures at reasoning
The account is @godofprompt on both platforms. But they stopped using Bluesky quickly after getting almost no response there when they have 233,000 followers on X.
Their post on this disturbing (for AI fans) new study is only on X. Since it's a social media post I'll quote it in full, but break the X link with spaces. The tweet below was posted at 2:40 AM ET this morning.
https:// x. com/ godofprompt/ status/2020764704130650600
God of Prompt
@godofprompt
🚨 Holy shit… Stanford just published the most uncomfortable paper on LLM reasoning I’ve read in a long time.
This isn’t a flashy new model or a leaderboard win. It’s a systematic teardown of how and why large language models keep failing at reasoning even when benchmarks say they’re doing great.
The paper does one very smart thing upfront: it introduces a clean taxonomy instead of more anecdotes. The authors split reasoning into non-embodied and embodied.
Non-embodied reasoning is what most benchmarks test and it’s further divided into informal reasoning (intuition, social judgment, commonsense heuristics) and formal reasoning (logic, math, code, symbolic manipulation).
Embodied reasoning is where models must reason about the physical world, space, causality, and action under real constraints.
Across all three, the same failure patterns keep showing up.
> First are fundamental failures baked into current architectures. Models generate answers that look coherent but collapse under light logical pressure. They shortcut, pattern-match, or hallucinate steps instead of executing a consistent reasoning process.
> Second are application-specific failures. A model that looks strong on math benchmarks can quietly fall apart in scientific reasoning, planning, or multi-step decision making. Performance does not transfer nearly as well as leaderboards imply.
> Third are robustness failures. Tiny changes in wording, ordering, or context can flip an answer entirely. The reasoning wasn’t stable to begin with; it just happened to work for that phrasing.
One of the most disturbing findings is how often models produce unfaithful reasoning. They give the correct final answer while providing explanations that are logically wrong, incomplete, or fabricated.
This is worse than being wrong, because it trains users to trust explanations that don’t correspond to the actual decision process.
Embodied reasoning is where things really fall apart. LLMs systematically fail at physical commonsense, spatial reasoning, and basic physics because they have no grounded experience.
Even in text-only settings, as soon as a task implicitly depends on real-world dynamics, failures become predictable and repeatable.
The authors don’t just criticize. They outline mitigation paths: inference-time scaling, analogical memory, external verification, and evaluations that deliberately inject known failure cases instead of optimizing for leaderboard performance.
But they’re very clear that none of these are silver bullets yet.
The takeaway isn’t that LLMs can’t reason.
It’s more uncomfortable than that.
LLMs reason just enough to sound convincing, but not enough to be reliable.
And unless we start measuring how models fail not just how often they succeed we’ll keep deploying systems that pass benchmarks, fail silently in production, and explain themselves with total confidence while doing the wrong thing.
That’s the real warning shot in this paper.
Paper: Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
@godofprompt
🚨 Holy shit… Stanford just published the most uncomfortable paper on LLM reasoning I’ve read in a long time.
This isn’t a flashy new model or a leaderboard win. It’s a systematic teardown of how and why large language models keep failing at reasoning even when benchmarks say they’re doing great.
The paper does one very smart thing upfront: it introduces a clean taxonomy instead of more anecdotes. The authors split reasoning into non-embodied and embodied.
Non-embodied reasoning is what most benchmarks test and it’s further divided into informal reasoning (intuition, social judgment, commonsense heuristics) and formal reasoning (logic, math, code, symbolic manipulation).
Embodied reasoning is where models must reason about the physical world, space, causality, and action under real constraints.
Across all three, the same failure patterns keep showing up.
> First are fundamental failures baked into current architectures. Models generate answers that look coherent but collapse under light logical pressure. They shortcut, pattern-match, or hallucinate steps instead of executing a consistent reasoning process.
> Second are application-specific failures. A model that looks strong on math benchmarks can quietly fall apart in scientific reasoning, planning, or multi-step decision making. Performance does not transfer nearly as well as leaderboards imply.
> Third are robustness failures. Tiny changes in wording, ordering, or context can flip an answer entirely. The reasoning wasn’t stable to begin with; it just happened to work for that phrasing.
One of the most disturbing findings is how often models produce unfaithful reasoning. They give the correct final answer while providing explanations that are logically wrong, incomplete, or fabricated.
This is worse than being wrong, because it trains users to trust explanations that don’t correspond to the actual decision process.
Embodied reasoning is where things really fall apart. LLMs systematically fail at physical commonsense, spatial reasoning, and basic physics because they have no grounded experience.
Even in text-only settings, as soon as a task implicitly depends on real-world dynamics, failures become predictable and repeatable.
The authors don’t just criticize. They outline mitigation paths: inference-time scaling, analogical memory, external verification, and evaluations that deliberately inject known failure cases instead of optimizing for leaderboard performance.
But they’re very clear that none of these are silver bullets yet.
The takeaway isn’t that LLMs can’t reason.
It’s more uncomfortable than that.
LLMs reason just enough to sound convincing, but not enough to be reliable.
And unless we start measuring how models fail not just how often they succeed we’ll keep deploying systems that pass benchmarks, fail silently in production, and explain themselves with total confidence while doing the wrong thing.
That’s the real warning shot in this paper.
Paper: Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
Link to the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06176
29 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
