Do reasoning LLMs need their own Philosophical Language?

A few days ago, I saw a cluster of tweets about OpenAI's o1 randomly switching to Chinese while reasoning -- here's a good example. I think I've seen it switch languages a few times as well. Thinking about it, Chinese -- or any other language written in a non-Latin alphabet -- would be particularly noticeable, because those notes describing what it's thinking about flash by pretty quickly, and you're only really likely to notice something weird if it's immediately visibly different to what you expect. So perhaps it's spending a lot of its time switching from language to language depending on what it's thinking about, and then it translates back to the language of the conversation for the final output.

Why would it do that? Presumably certain topics are covered better in its training set in specific languages -- it will have more on Chinese history in Chinese, Russian history in Russian, and so on. But equally possibly, some languages are easier for it to reason about certain topics in. Tiezhen Wang, a bilingual AI developer, tweeted that he preferred doing maths in Chinese "because each digit is just one syllable, which makes calculations crisp and efficient". Perhaps there's something similar there for LLMs.

That got me thinking about the 17th-century idea of a Philosophical Language. If you've read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle books, you'll maybe remember it from there -- that's certainly where I heard about it. The idea was that natural human languages were not very good for reasoning about things, and the solution would be to create an ideal, consciously-designed language that was more rational. Then philosophers (or scientists as we'd say these days) could work in it and get better results.

There are echos of that in E' (E-Prime), another one I picked up on from fiction (this time from The Illuminatus! Trilogy). It's English, without the verb "to be", the idea being that most uses of the word are unnecessarily foggy and would be better replaced. "Mary is a doctor" implies that her job is the important thing about her, whereas "Mary practices medicine" is specific that it's one just aspect of her. What I like about it is that it -- in theory -- gets a more "Philosophical" language with a really small tweak rather than a complete redesign.

What I'm wondering is, are human languages really the right way for LLMs to be reasoning if we want accurate results quickly? We all know how easy it is to be bamboozled by words, either our own or other people's. Is there some way we could construct a language that would be better?

The baroque philosophers ultimately failed, and modern scientists tend to switch to mathematics when they need to be precise ("physics is a system for translating the Universe into maths so that you can reason about it" -- discuss).

But perhaps by watching which languages o1 is choosing for different kinds of reasoning we could identify pre-existing (grammatical/morphological/etc) structures that just seem to work better for different kinds of tasks, and then use that as a framework to build something on top of. That feels like something that could be done much more easily now than it could in the pre-LLM world.

Or maybe a reasoning language is something that could be learned as part of a training process; perhaps each LLM could develop its own, after pre-training with human languages to get it to understand the underlying concept of "language". Then it might better mirror how LLMs work -- its structures might map more directly to the way transformers process information. It might have ways of representing things that you literally could not describe in human languages.

Think of it as a machine code for LLMs, perhaps. Is it a dumb idea? As always, comments are open :-)