Blaise Agüera y Arcas

Gary Lupyan, Blaise Agüera y Arcas

We report on an astonishing ability of large language models (LLMs) to make sense of "Jabberwocky" language in which most or all content words have been randomly replaced by nonsense strings, e.g., translating "He dwushed a ghanc zawk" to "He dragged a spare chair". This result addresses ongoing controversies regarding how to best think of what LLMs are doing: are they a language mimic, a database, a blurry version of the Web? The ability of LLMs to recover meaning from structural patterns speaks to the unreasonable effectiveness of pattern-matching. Pattern-matching is not an alternative to "real" intelligence, but rather a key ingredient.

Junsol Kim, Shiyang Lai, Nino Scherrer et al.

Large language models have achieved remarkable capabilities across domains, yet mechanisms underlying sophisticated reasoning remain elusive. Recent reasoning models outperform comparable instruction-tuned models on complex cognitive tasks, attributed to extended computation through longer chains of thought. Here we show that enhanced reasoning emerges not from extended computation alone, but from simulating multi-agent-like interactions -- a society of thought -- which enables diversification and debate among internal cognitive perspectives characterized by distinct personality traits and domain expertise. Through quantitative analysis and mechanistic interpretability methods applied to reasoning traces, we find that reasoning models like DeepSeek-R1 and QwQ-32B exhibit much greater perspective diversity than instruction-tuned models, activating broader conflict between heterogeneous personality- and expertise-related features during reasoning. This multi-agent structure manifests in conversational behaviors, including question-answering, perspective shifts, and the reconciliation of conflicting views, and in socio-emotional roles that characterize sharp back-and-forth conversations, together accounting for the accuracy advantage in reasoning tasks. Controlled reinforcement learning experiments reveal that base models increase conversational behaviors when rewarded solely for reasoning accuracy, and fine-tuning models with conversational scaffolding accelerates reasoning improvement over base models. These findings indicate that the social organization of thought enables effective exploration of solution spaces. We suggest that reasoning models establish a computational parallel to collective intelligence in human groups, where diversity enables superior problem-solving when systematically structured, which suggests new opportunities for agent organization to harness the wisdom of crowds.