Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #628865 > unrolled thread

Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 00:05 +0200
    Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-05 03:50 +0200
      Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 04:06 +0200
        Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> - 2024-07-05 05:24 +0200
          Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 06:47 +0200
            Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 06:48 +0200
    The curse of Negri & Plato (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 04:07 +0200
      Re: The curse of Negri & Plato (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 04:08 +0200
        Euklid: Am I a joke to you? (Re: The curse of Negri & Plato) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-13 08:18 +0200
    Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 06:49 +0200
      Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-07 23:10 +0200
        Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-07 23:18 +0200
    French Philosophy in 2024 (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 11:30 +0200
      Re: French Philosophy in 2024 (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 11:38 +0200
        Corona isn't over 2024 (Was: French Philosophy in 2024) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 12:23 +0200
        Re: Corona isn't over 2024 (Was: French Philosophy in 2024) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 12:36 +0200
    The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-13 10:33 +0200
    Re: The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-13 10:56 +0200
      Re: The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-14 00:04 +0200
        Re: The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-14 00:14 +0200
    Distinction between Computation & Derivation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-22 12:58 +0200
    Prolegomena by Rappaport (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-31 22:16 +0200
      2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain (Re: Prolegomena by Rappaport) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-03 22:51 +0200
        Ok I made a joke, sorry (Re: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-03 23:48 +0200
          Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry (Re: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-04 00:00 +0200
          bullshit bullshit bullshit (Was: Ok I made a joke, sorry) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-04 00:13 +0200
    The two rules (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-04 00:58 +0200
      Re: The two rules (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2024-08-04 01:45 +0200
    The anchoring problem in a real world philosopher (Re: LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-08 17:11 +0200
      Long life learning also for real world philosophers? (Re: The anchoring problem in a real world philosopher) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-08 17:19 +0200
    Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC) (Was: LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-28 20:46 +0200
    Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 22:38 +0200
      AI robots from Disney (Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 23:20 +0200
      Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2024-09-02 09:32 -0400
        Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-09-02 09:30 -0700
          There is only a nature article about "low carbon emission" (Was: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-02 19:02 +0200
      I can't stand Mira Murati's Eyewash (Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-03 12:03 +0200
        After blue, green why not start yellow (Re: I can't stand Mira Murati's Eyewash) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-03 17:58 +0200
          miramurati bye bye (Re: After blue, green why not start yellow) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-25 22:10 +0200
      Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-05 19:52 +0200
        Re: Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-05 23:52 +0200
          Salem Aleikum: Maxwella's Equations (Re: Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-09 13:20 +0200
            non judicium, sed latrocinium (Re: Salem Aleikum: Maxwella's Equations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-10 08:57 +0200
        Internet was made for cats (Was: Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-11 20:11 +0200
          I was there, 3000 years ago (Re: Internet was made for cats) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-13 13:00 +0200
            Even Haitians are now voting for Trump (Re: I was there, 3000 years ago (Re: Internet was made for cats)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-13 13:03 +0200
          supply chain attack (Re: Internet was made for cats) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-17 22:19 +0200
            Polyfill Supply Chain Attack (Re: supply chain attack) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-11 09:13 +0200
      USA is shitting its pants (Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-16 00:23 +0200
        scryer prolog is dead, BILAI instead? Re: USA is shitting its pants (Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-18 15:44 +0200
          Microsoft is plagiarizing my Invention [LLMs under the hood] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-08 16:06 +0200
            Geoffrey Hinton / Nobelpreis für Physik [Re: Microsoft is plagiarizing my Invention [LLMs under the hood]] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-08 16:06 +0200
    "Emotional AI" and "Spiritual AI" (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-03 12:29 +0200
      Oh shit, too late! (Re: "Emotional AI" and "Spiritual AI" (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-03 12:41 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#629664 — Distinction between Computation & Derivation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Hi,

Thats quite a deseases, even Wadler makes the
error, when he automatically associates the curry
howard isomorphism, to evaluation strategies.

Often proof normalization cannot go as far
as evaluation strategies can go. A simple example
is the Y combinator. You can try yourself,

I am adding the “I” combinator which we have
already shown to be derivable, and then a
new “Y” combinator:

/* I axiom */
typeof(i, (A -> B)) :-
    unify_with_occurs_check(A,B).
/* Y axiom */
typeof(y, ((A -> B) -> C)) :-
    unify_with_occurs_check(A,B),
    unify_with_occurs_check(A,C).

Lets see what happens, can we prove anything?

?- between(1,6,N), search(typeof(X, a), N, 0).
N = 3,
X = y*i .

Yes it collapses trivally, even doesn’t need a
complicated Curry Paradox.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
> world was asleep for many years:
> 
> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
> 
> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
> for simple types:
> 
> ----------------
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
> 
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
> ----------------
> Γ ⊢ A → B
> 
> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
> ----------------------------
> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
> 
> And funny things can happen, especially when people
> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
> 
> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
> 
> Recommended reading so far:
> 
> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
> 
> The Logic of Church and Curry
> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
> 
> logic without embedded implication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629874 — Prolegomena by Rappaport (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

I am really surprised that we have reached
a point in history, where philosophy and
artificial intelligence go separate paths,
where philosophy stigmatizes means of

abstractions on the computer and where even
education in computer science itself is at
loss with the rapid advancement of type theory
from computation to deduction. This wasn’t always

the case according to this essay (*):

 > It is interesting to note that almost all the major subfields of AI 
mirror subfields of philosophy: The AI analogue of philosophy of 
language is computational
 > linguistics; what philosophers call “practical
 > reasoning” is called “planning and acting” in
 > AI; ontology (indeed, much of metaphysics
 > and epistemology) corresponds to knowledge
 > representation in AI; and automated reasoning
 > is one of the AI analogues of logic.
 > – C.2.1.1 Intentions, practitions, and the ought-to-do.

maybe we should find a way back to cooperation:

 > Should AI workers study philosophy? Yes,
 > unless they are content to reinvent the wheel
 > every few days. When AI reinvents a wheel, it is
 > typically square, or at best hexagonal, and
 > can only make a few hundred revolutions before
 > it stops. Philosopher’s wheels, on the other hand,
 > are perfect circles, require in principle no
 > lubrication, and can go in at least two directions
 > at once. Clearly a meeting of minds is in order.
 > – C.4 Summary

See also:

(*)

Prolegomena to a Study of Hector-Neri Castañeda’s
Influence on Artificial Intelligence: A Survey
and Personal Reflections William Rappaport - January 1998
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266277981


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
> world was asleep for many years:
> 
> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
> 
> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
> for simple types:
> 
> ----------------
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
> 
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
> ----------------
> Γ ⊢ A → B
> 
> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
> ----------------------------
> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
> 
> And funny things can happen, especially when people
> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
> 
> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
> 
> Recommended reading so far:
> 
> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
> 
> The Logic of Church and Curry
> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
> 
> logic without embedded implication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629938 — 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain (Re: Prolegomena by Rappaport)

Hi,

Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
Turn is characterized as:

 > The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
 > movement that began in the 1950s as an
 > interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
 > processes, from which emerged a new
 > field known as cognitive science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution

The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas

most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist

is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current

short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:

A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705

making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow

overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
   caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
   some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?

So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.

Jeff Barnett schrieb:
 > You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have
we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.

The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.

I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute
whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.

Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
ways, the simulations are often based on air.

A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.

For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see

https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html

    -- Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629939 — Ok I made a joke, sorry (Re: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain)

My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.

The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,

would explain:
- why my father or mother never tried to
   educated me towards cognitive science.
   It could be that they are totally blank
   in this respect?

- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
   tried to educate me towards cognitive
   science. Dito It could be that they are totally
   blank in this respect?

- it could be that there are rare cases where
   some philosophers had already a glimps of
   cognitive science. But when I open for
   example this booklet:

System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL

   One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
   for several millennia.  What happened in the
   1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.


Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
> of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
> Turn is characterized as:
> 
>  > The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
>  > movement that began in the 1950s as an
>  > interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
>  > processes, from which emerged a new
>  > field known as cognitive science.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
> 
> The current mainstream believe is that
> Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
> based on "Machine Learning", whereas
> 
> most of the progress is more based on
> "Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
> about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
> 
> is again lurking. In the worst case the
> no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
> Technological singularity in that the current
> 
> short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
> some long inferencing, like here:
> 
> A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
> logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
> Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
> designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
> https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
> 
> making it possible not to excell by LLMs
> in such puzzles, but to advance to more
> elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
> 
> overcome fallacies such as:
> - Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
>    caused by averaging?
> - Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
>    some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
> - What else?
> 
> So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
> of science which we will happily depend on.
> 
> Jeff Barnett schrieb:
>  > You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have
> we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
> and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
> studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
> was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
> other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
> incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
> of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
> to correlations and other statistical approximations.
> 
> The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
> learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
> it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
> are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
> not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
> infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
> was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
> when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
> 
> I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
> MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
> blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
> one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
> In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
> house infection that changes over time. It changes
> because sick patients brought into the area contribute
> whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
> second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
> of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
> result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
> by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
> no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
> meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
> that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
> make predictions when the basic probabilities are
> changing faster than observations can be
> turned into inferences.
> 
> Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
> here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
> to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
> Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
> ways, the simulations are often based on air.
> 
> A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
> explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
> able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
> we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
> repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
> By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
> reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
> However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
> capabilities isn't very interesting.
> 
> For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
> ability to reasonably reason, see
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html 
> 
> 
>     -- Jeff Barnett

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629942 — Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry (Re: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain)

BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good
and funny to browse, he reports relatively
unfiltered what we would nowadays call

forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little
pot purry, except for his sections where he
explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan

figures, which are more pure logic of the form.
And peng you get a guy talking pages and
pages about pure and form:

"Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm

But the above is a from species of philosophy
that is endangered now. Its predator are
abstractions on the computer like lambda

calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The
revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only
dead people would be interested in, like

may father, grandfather etc...

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> My impression Cognitive Science was never
> Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
> 
> The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
> it is still relative unknown subject,
> 
> would explain:
> - why my father or mother never tried to
>    educated me towards cognitive science.
>    It could be that they are totally blank
>    in this respect?
> 
> - why my grandfather or grandmothers never
>    tried to educate me towards cognitive
>    science. Dito It could be that they are totally
>    blank in this respect?
> 
> - it could be that there are rare cases where
>    some philosophers had already a glimps of
>    cognitive science. But when I open for
>    example this booklet:
> 
> System der Logic
> Friedrich Ueberweg
> Bonn - 1868
> https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
> 
>    One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
>    for several millennia.  What happened in the
>    1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
>> of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
>> Turn is characterized as:
>>
>>  > The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
>>  > movement that began in the 1950s as an
>>  > interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
>>  > processes, from which emerged a new
>>  > field known as cognitive science.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
>>
>> The current mainstream believe is that
>> Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
>> based on "Machine Learning", whereas
>>
>> most of the progress is more based on
>> "Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
>> about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
>>
>> is again lurking. In the worst case the
>> no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
>> Technological singularity in that the current
>>
>> short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
>> some long inferencing, like here:
>>
>> A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
>> logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
>> Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
>> designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
>> https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
>>
>> making it possible not to excell by LLMs
>> in such puzzles, but to advance to more
>> elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
>>
>> overcome fallacies such as:
>> - Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
>>    caused by averaging?
>> - Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
>>    some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
>> - What else?
>>
>> So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
>> of science which we will happily depend on.
>>
>> Jeff Barnett schrieb:
>>  > You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have
>> we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
>> and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
>> studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
>> was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
>> other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
>> incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
>> of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
>> to correlations and other statistical approximations.
>>
>> The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
>> learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
>> it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
>> are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
>> not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
>> infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
>> was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
>> when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
>>
>> I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
>> MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
>> blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
>> one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
>> In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
>> house infection that changes over time. It changes
>> because sick patients brought into the area contribute
>> whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
>> second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
>> of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
>> result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
>> by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
>> no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
>> meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
>> that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
>> make predictions when the basic probabilities are
>> changing faster than observations can be
>> turned into inferences.
>>
>> Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
>> here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
>> to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
>> Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
>> ways, the simulations are often based on air.
>>
>> A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
>> explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
>> able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
>> we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
>> repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
>> By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
>> reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
>> However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
>> capabilities isn't very interesting.
>>
>> For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
>> ability to reasonably reason, see
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html 
>>
>>
>>     -- Jeff Barnett
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629943 — bullshit bullshit bullshit (Was: Ok I made a joke, sorry)

David Woodruff Smith writes:
 > And "cognitive science" has recently pursued
 > the relation of intentional mental activities
 > to neural processes in the brain.

I call this bullshit. He confuses cognitive
science with some sort of Neuroscience and/or
connectionist approaches.

Some broader working definition
of cognitive science is for example:

 > Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary
 > science that deals with the processing of
 > information in the context of perception,
 > thinking and decision-making processes,
 > both in humans and in animals or machines.

You see how much philosophy is behind.
David Woodruff Smith published the
paper in 2003? I don't think there are any

excuses for his nonsense definition.
Especially if one writes about pure form.
This is so idiotic.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good
> and funny to browse, he reports relatively
> unfiltered what we would nowadays call
> 
> forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little
> pot purry, except for his sections where he
> explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan
> 
> figures, which are more pure logic of the form.
> And peng you get a guy talking pages and
> pages about pure and form:
> 
> "Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology
> David Woodruff Smith
> https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm 
> 
> 
> But the above is a from species of philosophy
> that is endangered now. Its predator are
> abstractions on the computer like lambda
> 
> calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The
> revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only
> dead people would be interested in, like
> 
> may father, grandfather etc...
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> My impression Cognitive Science was never
>> Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
>>
>> The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
>> it is still relative unknown subject,
>>
>> would explain:
>> - why my father or mother never tried to
>>    educated me towards cognitive science.
>>    It could be that they are totally blank
>>    in this respect?
>>
>> - why my grandfather or grandmothers never
>>    tried to educate me towards cognitive
>>    science. Dito It could be that they are totally
>>    blank in this respect?
>>
>> - it could be that there are rare cases where
>>    some philosophers had already a glimps of
>>    cognitive science. But when I open for
>>    example this booklet:
>>
>> System der Logic
>> Friedrich Ueberweg
>> Bonn - 1868
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
>>
>>    One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
>>    for several millennia.  What happened in the
>>    1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.
>>
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
>>> of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
>>> Turn is characterized as:
>>>
>>>  > The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
>>>  > movement that began in the 1950s as an
>>>  > interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
>>>  > processes, from which emerged a new
>>>  > field known as cognitive science.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
>>>
>>> The current mainstream believe is that
>>> Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
>>> based on "Machine Learning", whereas
>>>
>>> most of the progress is more based on
>>> "Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
>>> about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
>>>
>>> is again lurking. In the worst case the
>>> no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
>>> Technological singularity in that the current
>>>
>>> short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
>>> some long inferencing, like here:
>>>
>>> A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
>>> logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
>>> Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
>>> designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
>>> https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
>>>
>>> making it possible not to excell by LLMs
>>> in such puzzles, but to advance to more
>>> elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
>>>
>>> overcome fallacies such as:
>>> - Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
>>>    caused by averaging?
>>> - Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
>>>    some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
>>> - What else?
>>>
>>> So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
>>> of science which we will happily depend on.
>>>
>>> Jeff Barnett schrieb:
>>>  > You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have
>>> we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
>>> and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
>>> studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
>>> was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
>>> other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
>>> incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
>>> of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
>>> to correlations and other statistical approximations.
>>>
>>> The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
>>> learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
>>> it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
>>> are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
>>> not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
>>> infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
>>> was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
>>> when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
>>>
>>> I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
>>> MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
>>> blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
>>> one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
>>> In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
>>> house infection that changes over time. It changes
>>> because sick patients brought into the area contribute
>>> whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
>>> second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
>>> of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
>>> result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
>>> by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
>>> no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
>>> meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
>>> that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
>>> make predictions when the basic probabilities are
>>> changing faster than observations can be
>>> turned into inferences.
>>>
>>> Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
>>> here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
>>> to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
>>> Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
>>> ways, the simulations are often based on air.
>>>
>>> A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
>>> explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
>>> able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
>>> we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
>>> repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
>>> By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
>>> reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
>>> However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
>>> capabilities isn't very interesting.
>>>
>>> For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
>>> ability to reasonably reason, see
>>>
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html 
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- Jeff Barnett
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629944 — The two rules (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Well we all know about this rule:

- Never ask a woman about her weight

- Never ask a woman about her age

There is a similar rule for philosophers:

- Never ask a philosopher what is cognitive science

- Never ask a philosopher what is formula-as-types

Explanation: They like to be the champions of
pure form like in this paper below, so they
don’t like other disciplines dealing with pure
form or even having pure form on the computer.

"Pure” logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith - Revue internationale de philosophie 2003/2
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
> world was asleep for many years:
> 
> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
> 
> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
> for simple types:
> 
> ----------------
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
> 
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
> ----------------
> Γ ⊢ A → B
> 
> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
> ----------------------------
> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
> 
> And funny things can happen, especially when people
> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
> 
> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
> 
> Recommended reading so far:
> 
> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
> 
> The Logic of Church and Curry
> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
> 
> logic without embedded implication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#629945 — Re: The two rules (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Am 04.08.2024 um 00:58 schrieb Mild Shock:
> 
> Well we all know about this rule:
> 
> [...]
> 
> - Never ask a woman about her age.

Right.

On the other hand, I'm 45 - since more than 10 years-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630103 — The anchoring problem in a real world philosopher (Re: LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven?)

Hi,

Lets say one milestone in cognitive science,
is the concept of "bounded rationality".
It seems LLMs have some traits that are also

found in humans. For example the anchoring effect
is a psychological phenomenon in which an
individual’s judgements or decisions

are influenced by a reference point or “anchor”
which can be completely irrelevant. Like for example
when discussing Curry Howard isomorphism with

a real world philosopher , one that might
not know Curry Howard isomorphism but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect

nevertheless be tempted to hallucinate some nonsense.
One highly cited paper in this respect is Tversky &
Kahneman 1974. R.I.P. Daniel Kahneman,

March 27, 2024. The paper is still cited today:

Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Biases: A Viewpoint
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-2-page-223.htm

Maybe using deeper and/or more careful reasoning,
possibly backed up by Prolog engine, could have
a positive effect? Its very difficult also for a

Prolog engine, since there is a trade-off
between producing no answer at all if the software
agent is too careful, and of producing a wealth

of nonsense otherwise.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> There are more and more papers of this sort:
> 
> Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
> To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
> approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
> all relevant information from a problem statement as
> logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
> language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
> explicit deductive reasoning.
> [2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
> 
> The future of Prolog is bright?
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
>> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
>> world was asleep for many years:
>>
>> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
>> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
>>
>> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
>> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
>> for simple types:
>>
>> ----------------
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
>>
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
>> ----------------
>> Γ ⊢ A → B
>>
>> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
>> ----------------------------
>> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
>>
>> And funny things can happen, especially when people
>> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
>> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
>>
>> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
>> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
>>
>> Recommended reading so far:
>>
>> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
>> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
>>
>> The Logic of Church and Curry
>> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
>> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
>> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
>>
>> logic without embedded implication.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630104 — Long life learning also for real world philosophers? (Re: The anchoring problem in a real world philosopher)

But I wouldn’t give up so quickly, even
classical expert system theory of the 80’s
had it that an expert system needs somewhere

a knowledge acquisition component. But the
idea there was that the system would simulate
the experts dialog with the advice taker

Von Datenbanken zu Expertsystemen
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1051258432

and gather further information to complete
the advice. Still this could be inspiring,
don’t stop at not knowing Curry-Howard isomorphism,

go on learn it, never stop! Just like here:

Never Gonna Give You Up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Lets say one milestone in cognitive science,
> is the concept of "bounded rationality".
> It seems LLMs have some traits that are also
> 
> found in humans. For example the anchoring effect
> is a psychological phenomenon in which an
> individual’s judgements or decisions
> 
> are influenced by a reference point or “anchor”
> which can be completely irrelevant. Like for example
> when discussing Curry Howard isomorphism with
> 
> a real world philosopher , one that might
> not know Curry Howard isomorphism but
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
> 
> nevertheless be tempted to hallucinate some nonsense.
> One highly cited paper in this respect is Tversky &
> Kahneman 1974. R.I.P. Daniel Kahneman,
> 
> March 27, 2024. The paper is still cited today:
> 
> Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Biases: A Viewpoint
> https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-2-page-223.htm 
> 
> 
> Maybe using deeper and/or more careful reasoning,
> possibly backed up by Prolog engine, could have
> a positive effect? Its very difficult also for a
> 
> Prolog engine, since there is a trade-off
> between producing no answer at all if the software
> agent is too careful, and of producing a wealth
> 
> of nonsense otherwise.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> There are more and more papers of this sort:
>>
>> Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
>> To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
>> approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
>> all relevant information from a problem statement as
>> logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
>> language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
>> explicit deductive reasoning.
>> [2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
>>
>> The future of Prolog is bright?
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
>>> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
>>> world was asleep for many years:
>>>
>>> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
>>> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
>>> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
>>>
>>> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
>>> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
>>> for simple types:
>>>
>>> ----------------
>>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
>>>
>>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
>>> ----------------
>>> Γ ⊢ A → B
>>>
>>> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
>>> ----------------------------
>>> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
>>>
>>> And funny things can happen, especially when people
>>> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
>>> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
>>>
>>> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
>>> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
>>>
>>> Recommended reading so far:
>>>
>>> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
>>> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
>>>
>>> The Logic of Church and Curry
>>> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
>>>
>>>
>>> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
>>> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
>>> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
>>>
>>> logic without embedded implication.
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630800 — Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC) (Was: LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven?)

Now I wonder whether LLMs should be an
inch more informed by results from Neuro-
endocrinology research. I remember Marvin
Minsky publishing his ‘The Society of Mind’:

Introduction to ‘The Society of Mind’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pb3z2w9gDg

But this made me think about a multi agent
systems. Now with LLMs what about a new
connectionist and deep learning approach.
Plus Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC).

But who can write a blue print? Now there
is this amazing guy called Robert M. Sapolsky
who recently published Determined: A Science
of Life without Free Will, who

calls consciousness just a hicup. His turtles
all the way down model is a tour de force
through an unsettling conclusion: We may not
grasp the precise marriage of nature and nurture

that creates the physics and chemistry at the
base of human behavior, but that doesn’t mean it
doesn’t exist. But the pre frontal cortex (PFC)
seems to be still quite brittle and not extremly

performant and quite energy hungry.
So Prolog might excell?

Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will
https://www.amazon.de/dp/0525560998

Mild Shock schrieb:
> There are more and more papers of this sort:
> 
> Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
> To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
> approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
> all relevant information from a problem statement as
> logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
> language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
> explicit deductive reasoning.
> [2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
> 
> The future of Prolog is bright?
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
>> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
>> world was asleep for many years:
>>
>> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
>> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
>>
>> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
>> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
>> for simple types:
>>
>> ----------------
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
>>
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
>> ----------------
>> Γ ⊢ A → B
>>
>> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
>> ----------------------------
>> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
>>
>> And funny things can happen, especially when people
>> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
>> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
>>
>> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
>> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
>>
>> Recommended reading so far:
>>
>> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
>> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
>>
>> The Logic of Church and Curry
>> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
>> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
>> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
>>
>> logic without embedded implication.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630954 — Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254

Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
> world was asleep for many years:
> 
> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
> 
> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
> for simple types:
> 
> ----------------
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
> 
> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
> ----------------
> Γ ⊢ A → B
> 
> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
> ----------------------------
> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
> 
> And funny things can happen, especially when people
> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
> 
> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
> 
> Recommended reading so far:
> 
> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
> 
> The Logic of Church and Curry
> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
> 
> logic without embedded implication.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630955 — AI robots from Disney (Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans)

Hold your breath, the bartender in your next
vacation destination will be most likely an AI
robot. Lets say in 5 years from now. Right?

Michael Sheen The Robot Bartender
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV4Fxy5IyBM

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
> are lower for AI than for humans
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
> 
> Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
> query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
> 2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
> decrease 10x per year
> https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
> 
> Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
>> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
>> world was asleep for many years:
>>
>> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
>> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
>>
>> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
>> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
>> for simple types:
>>
>> ----------------
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
>>
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
>> ----------------
>> Γ ⊢ A → B
>>
>> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
>> ----------------------------
>> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
>>
>> And funny things can happen, especially when people
>> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
>> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
>>
>> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
>> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
>>
>> Recommended reading so far:
>>
>> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
>> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
>>
>> The Logic of Church and Curry
>> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
>> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
>> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
>>
>> logic without embedded implication.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630956 — Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

On 9/1/2024 4:38 PM, Mild Shock wrote:

> The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
> are lower for AI than for humans
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

I think I've seen this one already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3sTO7VqxME
⎛
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ He died in West Virginia
⎜ With his hammer in his hand
⎜ They sing about him all across the land
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜
⎜
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ And it didn't change nothin'
⎜ But heaven knows he tried
⎜ He was buried with his hammer by his side
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ John Henry
⎜
⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜ And the company come to take it
⎜ But the work was hard and slow
⎜ Said well, there ain't no money in it
⎜ We'll just go
⎜ Alright, there's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜
⎜ And the union come and tried to make a stand
⎜ The union come and tried to make a stand
⎜ And West Virginia miners voted union to a man
⎜ You'd never know it now, but that was then
⎜ When the union come and tried to make a stand
⎜
⎜ But the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Well, the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Cut more coal in an hour
⎜ Than a shift could in a week
⎜ John Henry could've told them what that means
⎜ When the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Hey
⎜
⎜
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ He died in West Virginia
⎜ With his hammer in his hand
⎜ They sing about him all across the land
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜
⎜ -- Steve Earle
⎝
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Steve-Earle/john-henry-was-a-steel-drivin-man

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630957 — Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

On 09/02/2024 06:32 AM, Jim Burns wrote:
> On 9/1/2024 4:38 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
>
>> The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
>> are lower for AI than for humans
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
>
> I think I've seen this one already.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3sTO7VqxME
> ⎛
> ⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
> ⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
> ⎜ He died in West Virginia
> ⎜ With his hammer in his hand
> ⎜ They sing about him all across the land
> ⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
> ⎜
> ⎜
> ⎜ He beat the steam drill down
> ⎜ And then he died
> ⎜ He beat the steam drill down
> ⎜ And then he died
> ⎜ And it didn't change nothin'
> ⎜ But heaven knows he tried
> ⎜ He was buried with his hammer by his side
> ⎜ He beat the steam drill down
> ⎜ And then he died
> ⎜ John Henry
> ⎜
> ⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
> ⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
> ⎜ And the company come to take it
> ⎜ But the work was hard and slow
> ⎜ Said well, there ain't no money in it
> ⎜ We'll just go
> ⎜ Alright, there's coal beneath the mountain down below
> ⎜
> ⎜ And the union come and tried to make a stand
> ⎜ The union come and tried to make a stand
> ⎜ And West Virginia miners voted union to a man
> ⎜ You'd never know it now, but that was then
> ⎜ When the union come and tried to make a stand
> ⎜
> ⎜ But the company brought in all the big machines
> ⎜ Well, the company brought in all the big machines
> ⎜ Cut more coal in an hour
> ⎜ Than a shift could in a week
> ⎜ John Henry could've told them what that means
> ⎜ When the company brought in all the big machines
> ⎜ Hey
> ⎜
> ⎜
> ⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
> ⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
> ⎜ He died in West Virginia
> ⎜ With his hammer in his hand
> ⎜ They sing about him all across the land
> ⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
> ⎜
> ⎜ -- Steve Earle
> ⎝
> https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Steve-Earle/john-henry-was-a-steel-drivin-man
>
>
>
>
>


In some periods in history,
the price of oil is such,
that people pay
to have it hauled away.

So, it's not so much that AI is cheaper than people,
though it is a great source of advantange,
as that there's a great embarrassment of riches
of availability of computing resources,
what's set the price point so low.

Then, the idea is that people can afford their own agents,
on their own computing resources, not so much as that
it's cheap for the industry to offer that as a service,
to anybody, because the agent belongs to them,
and it's inscrutable and so on and worthless,
in terms of what value it takes.

So, "the cost", is plenty high, "unregulated AI".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630959 — There is only a nature article about "low carbon emission" (Was: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans)

I didn't find yet a paper that proofs "cheapness"
related to humans, only a paper about "low carbon
emission" related to humans:

 > The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
 > are lower for AI than for humans
 > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

And that costs go down is mentioned only
in a vague tweet, even not related to humans:

 > Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
 > query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
 > 2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
 > decrease 10x per year
 > https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254

So I wrote:

 > Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.

"low carbon emission" can be an indicative of low
price. But not necessarely. It could be also an
indicative of "green" production of AI. And maybe

the problem is that humans are not that "green",
it could be easier to make a computing center "green",
than a city full of humans. Also the nature

article could be some fake news propaganda.

So still waiting for more information...

> In some periods in history,
> the price of oil is such,
> that people pay
> to have it hauled away.
> 
> So, it's not so much that AI is cheaper than people,
> though it is a great source of advantange,
> as that there's a great embarrassment of riches
> of availability of computing resources,
> what's set the price point so low.
> 
> Then, the idea is that people can afford their own agents,
> on their own computing resources, not so much as that
> it's cheap for the industry to offer that as a service,
> to anybody, because the agent belongs to them,
> and it's inscrutable and so on and worthless,
> in terms of what value it takes.
> 
> So, "the cost", is plenty high, "unregulated AI".
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630975 — I can't stand Mira Murati's Eyewash (Re: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans)

What a bullshit:

Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/

Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they

learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg

for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
> are lower for AI than for humans
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
> 
> Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
> query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
> 2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
> decrease 10x per year
> https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
> 
> Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
>> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
>> world was asleep for many years:
>>
>> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
>> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
>>
>> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
>> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
>> for simple types:
>>
>> ----------------
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
>>
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
>> ----------------
>> Γ ⊢ A → B
>>
>> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
>> ----------------------------
>> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
>>
>> And funny things can happen, especially when people
>> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
>> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
>>
>> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
>> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
>>
>> Recommended reading so far:
>>
>> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
>> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
>>
>> The Logic of Church and Curry
>> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
>> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
>> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
>>
>> logic without embedded implication.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#630985 — After blue, green why not start yellow (Re: I can't stand Mira Murati's Eyewash)

Hi,

The blue are AfD, the green are:

German greens after losing badly
https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-suffer-major-loss-of-votes-in-eu-elections-nina-haase-reports/video-69316755

Time to start a yellow party, the first party
with an Artificial Intelligence Ethics agenda?

Bye

P.S.: Here I tried some pigwrestling with
ChatGPT demonstrating Mira Murati is just
a nice face. But ChatGPT is just like a child,

spamming me with large bullets list, from
its huge lexical memory, without any deep
understanding. But it also gave me an interesting

list of potential caliber AI critiques. Any new
Greta Thunberg of Artificial Intelligence
Ethics among them?

Mira Murati Education Background
https://chatgpt.com/c/fbc385d4-de8d-4f29-b925-30fac75072d4


Mild Shock schrieb:
> What a bullshit:
> 
> Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
> jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
> study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
> jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
> that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
> displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
> support workers through the transition, such as job
> retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
> https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/ 
> 
> 
> Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
> are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
> In some cultures you don't find people over
> 30 that are long life learners. What should they
> 
> learn, on another valley where they harvest
> oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
> robots. And so on the next valley, and the
> next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
> 
> for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631679 — miramurati bye bye (Re: After blue, green why not start yellow)

I told you so, not worth a dime:

I have something to share wit you. After much reflection,
I have made the difficut decision to leave OpenAI.
https://twitter.com/miramurati/status/1839025700009030027

Who is stepping in with the difficult task, Sam Altman himself?

The Intelligence Age
September 23, 2024
https://ia.samaltman.com/

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The blue are AfD, the green are:
> 
> German greens after losing badly
> https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-suffer-major-loss-of-votes-in-eu-elections-nina-haase-reports/video-69316755 
> 
> 
> Time to start a yellow party, the first party
> with an Artificial Intelligence Ethics agenda?
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Here I tried some pigwrestling with
> ChatGPT demonstrating Mira Murati is just
> a nice face. But ChatGPT is just like a child,
> 
> spamming me with large bullets list, from
> its huge lexical memory, without any deep
> understanding. But it also gave me an interesting
> 
> list of potential caliber AI critiques. Any new
> Greta Thunberg of Artificial Intelligence
> Ethics among them?
> 
> Mira Murati Education Background
> https://chatgpt.com/c/fbc385d4-de8d-4f29-b925-30fac75072d4
> 
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> What a bullshit:
>>
>> Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
>> jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
>> study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
>> jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
>> that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
>> displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
>> support workers through the transition, such as job
>> retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
>> https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/ 
>>
>>
>> Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
>> are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
>> In some cultures you don't find people over
>> 30 that are long life learners. What should they
>>
>> learn, on another valley where they harvest
>> oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
>> robots. And so on the next valley, and the
>> next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
>>
>> for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631032 — Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing

Hi,

SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/

Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
> are lower for AI than for humans
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
> 
> Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
> query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
> 2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
> decrease 10x per year
> https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
> 
> Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Could be a wake-up call this many participants
>> already in the commitee, that the whole logic
>> world was asleep for many years:
>>
>> Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
>> 5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
>>
>> Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
>> Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
>> for simple types:
>>
>> ----------------
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
>>
>> Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
>> ----------------
>> Γ ⊢ A → B
>>
>> Γ ⊢ A → B           Δ ⊢ A
>> ----------------------------
>> Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
>>
>> And funny things can happen, especially when people
>> hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
>> example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
>>
>> but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
>> because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
>>
>> Recommended reading so far:
>>
>> Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
>> February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
>>
>> The Logic of Church and Curry
>> Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C 
>>
>>
>> Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
>> Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
>> logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
>>
>> logic without embedded implication.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web