Sure, it predicts the most likely answer, but to do that effectively, it has to build internal structure that reflects the underlying relationships in the problem. That’s the part the “it just predicts the next token” criticism always glosses over. It’s not random guessing, it’s generalisation...
What exactly do you think “reasoning” is? What is it that humans are supposedly doing, that LLMs are not?
What’s the actual distinction you’re drawing?
Saying LLMs “do no reasoning” isn’t accurate. They don’t use simple logical operations, but they consistently handle tasks that clearly require what we’d call reasoning in any other context, e.g. logic problems, multi-step calculations, complex code, passing the medical exams. It’s not doing it...
I’d use hangers too, ones with nail holes full depth of the hanger, not just at the top. That way you stitch across the notch.
Hammer in packers between the dark wood and the light wood., that way you can mobilise both.
How much it can spread depends on the footing and wall's strength and stiffness. If it is stiff and strong enough to dilute the bearing pressures then you are fine. If the wall is continous the wall loads can redistribute elsewhere anyway...
To me, this looks like double dipping. (Assuming the wall is still in service). Your 900 lbs has already caused some settlement - and another 2000 lbs will cause more settlement - more than 2000 lbs would have.
Allowable bearing capacities aren’t about ultimate “capacity” — they’re about...
I understand why some want it rebuilt — they want it done as per the drawing, fair enough. But I don’t see why it’s surprising that other engineers might not be as concerned.
