I think this statement is on the same level as "a human cannot explain why they gave the answer they gave because they cannot actually introspect the chemical reactions in their brain." That is true, but a human often has an internal train of thought that preceded their ultimate answer, and it is interesting to know what that train of thought was.

In the same way, it is often quite instructive to know what the reasoning trace was that preceded an LLM's answer, without having to worry about what, mechanically, the LLM "understood" about the tokens, if this is even a meaningful question.

There can be higher- and lower-level descriptions of the same phenomenon. when the kettle boils, it’s because the water molecules were heated by the electric element, but it’s also because I wanted a cup of tea.

> Any answer other than "that was the most likely next token given the context" is untrue.

"Because the matrix math resulted in the set of tokens that produced the output". "Because the machine code driving the hosting devices produced the output you saw". "Because the combination of silicon traces and charges on the chips at that exact moment resulted in the output". "Because my neurons fired in a particular order/combination".

I don't see how your statement is any more useful. If an LLM has access to reasoning traces it can realistically waddle down the CoT and figure out where it took a wrong turn.

Just like a human does with memories in context - does't mean that's the full story - your decision making is very subconscious and nonverbal - you might not be aware of it, but any reasoning you give to explain why you did something is bound to be an incomplete story, created by your brain to explain what happened based on what it knows - but there's hidden state it doesn't have access to. And yet we ask that question constantly.

If you want to be pedantic about it you could phrase it as follows.

When the LLM was in reasoning mode, in the reasoning context it often expressed statement X. Given that, and the relevance of statement X to the taken action. It seems likely that the presence of statement X in the context contributed to this action. Besides, the presence of statement X in the reasoning likely means that given the previous context embeddings of X are close to the context.

Hence we think that the action was taken due to statement X.

And that output could have come from an LLM introspecting it's own reasoning.

I don't think that phrasing things so pedanticaly is worth the extra precision though. Especially not for the statement that inspecting the reasoning logs of sn LLM can help give insight on why an LLM acted a certain way.