>You just ruled out 99% of humans from having reasoning capabilities.
After a conversation with humans I think you'd agree 1% of them being able to reason deeply is a vast overestimation.
A good example to see how little people can reason is the following classic:
> Given the following premises derive a conclusion about your poems:
> 1) No interesting poems are unpopular among people of real taste.
> 2) No modern poetry is free from affectation.
> 3) All your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles.
> 4) No affected poetry is popular among people of taste.
> 5) Only a modern poem would be on the subject of soap bubbles.
The average person on the street won't even know where to start, the average philosophy student will fuck up the translation to first order logic, and a logic professor would need a proof assistant to get it right consistently.
Meanwhile o3-mini in 10 seconds:
We can derive a conclusion about your poems by following the logical implications of the given premises. Let’s rephrase each premise into a more formal form:
Premise 1: No interesting poems are unpopular among people of real taste.
This can be reworded as:
If a poem is interesting, then it is popular among people of real taste.
Premise 2: No modern poetry is free from affectation.
This tells us:
If a poem is modern, then it is affected (i.e., it shows affectation).
Premise 3: All your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles.
In other words:
Every one of your poems is about soap bubbles.
Premise 4: No affected poetry is popular among people of taste.
This implies:
If a poem is affected, then it is not popular among people of taste.
Premise 5: Only a modern poem would be on the subject of soap bubbles.
This means:
If a poem is about soap bubbles, then it is modern.
Now, let’s connect the dots step by step:
From Premise 3 and Premise 5:
All your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles.
Only modern poems can be about soap bubbles.
Conclusion: All your poems are modern.
From the conclusion above and Premise 2:
Since your poems are modern, and all modern poems are affected,
Conclusion: All your poems are affected.
From the conclusion above and Premise 4:
Since your poems are affected, and no affected poem is popular among people of taste,
Conclusion: Your poems are not popular among people of taste.
From Premise 1:
If a poem is interesting, it must be popular among people of taste.
Since your poems are not popular among people of taste (from step 3), it follows that:
Conclusion: Your poems cannot be interesting.
Final Conclusion:
Your poems are not interesting.
Thus, by logically combining the premises, we conclude that your poems are not interesting.
I could trace through that example quite quickly and I'm not an expert in logic, so I think you might be exaggerating some statements about difficulty here.
After a conversation with humans I think you'd agree 1% of them being able to reason deeply is a vast overestimation.
A good example to see how little people can reason is the following classic:
> Given the following premises derive a conclusion about your poems:
> 1) No interesting poems are unpopular among people of real taste.
> 2) No modern poetry is free from affectation.
> 3) All your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles.
> 4) No affected poetry is popular among people of taste.
> 5) Only a modern poem would be on the subject of soap bubbles.
The average person on the street won't even know where to start, the average philosophy student will fuck up the translation to first order logic, and a logic professor would need a proof assistant to get it right consistently.
Meanwhile o3-mini in 10 seconds:
We can derive a conclusion about your poems by following the logical implications of the given premises. Let’s rephrase each premise into a more formal form:
Premise 1: No interesting poems are unpopular among people of real taste. This can be reworded as: If a poem is interesting, then it is popular among people of real taste.
Premise 2: No modern poetry is free from affectation. This tells us: If a poem is modern, then it is affected (i.e., it shows affectation).
Premise 3: All your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles. In other words: Every one of your poems is about soap bubbles.
Premise 4: No affected poetry is popular among people of taste. This implies: If a poem is affected, then it is not popular among people of taste.
Premise 5: Only a modern poem would be on the subject of soap bubbles. This means: If a poem is about soap bubbles, then it is modern.
Now, let’s connect the dots step by step:
From Premise 3 and Premise 5:
All your poems are on the subject of soap bubbles.
Only modern poems can be about soap bubbles.
Conclusion: All your poems are modern.
From the conclusion above and Premise 2:
Since your poems are modern, and all modern poems are affected,
Conclusion: All your poems are affected.
From the conclusion above and Premise 4:
Since your poems are affected, and no affected poem is popular among people of taste,
Conclusion: Your poems are not popular among people of taste.
From Premise 1:
If a poem is interesting, it must be popular among people of taste.
Since your poems are not popular among people of taste (from step 3), it follows that:
Conclusion: Your poems cannot be interesting.
Final Conclusion: Your poems are not interesting.
Thus, by logically combining the premises, we conclude that your poems are not interesting.