Comment by throwaway314155

> explanation could just be that making the stochastic parrot squawk longer yields a better response

No one in the research and science communities ever said anything contrary to this and if they did they wouldn't last long (although i imagine many of them would find issue with your stochastic parrot reference).

The apple paper has a stronger title than its actual premise. Basically they found that "thinking" definitely works but falls apart for problems of a certain difficulty and simply scaling "thinking" up doesn't help (for these harder problems)

It never said "thinking" doesnt work. People are just combining the title with their existing prejudices to draw the conclusion the _want_ to see.