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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #13660 > unrolled thread

Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-04 07:49 -0700
    Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 08:20 -0700
      Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 03:24 -0700
      Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 02:14 -0700
        Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:25 -0700
          Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 17:58 -0700
            Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:48 -0700
              Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:54 -0700
                Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:31 -0700
                  Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 02:02 -0700
                    Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 02:14 -0700
                      Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 02:20 -0700
                        Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 07:34 -0700
        Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-20 05:23 -0800
          Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-20 09:01 -0800
            Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-25 07:23 -0800
              Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-25 13:10 -0800
                Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-27 09:31 -0800
                  Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-28 21:47 -0800
                    Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-28 21:58 -0800
                      Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-28 23:33 -0800
                        Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-11-30 15:43 -0800
        Zero Tokens comming out of me (Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-30 16:47 +0100
      FYI: New Journal NAI (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-06 17:18 +0100
        The Bee Clock Model (Re: FYI: New Journal NAI) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-06 17:41 +0100
      ChatGPT for the Flintstones: Bloomberg (Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-11 22:34 +0100
        Silicon Valley is the new Detroit (Re: ChatGPT for the Flintstones: Bloomberg) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-18 18:13 +0100
          Re: Silicon Valley is the new Detroit (Re: ChatGPT for the Flintstones: Bloomberg) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-02-18 18:14 +0100
    Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-04 23:09 +0200
      The curse of Negri & Plato (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 03:52 +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 03:54 +0200
          Euklid: Am I a joke to you? (Re: The curse of Negri & Plato) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-13 08:21 +0200
      Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-05 06:38 +0200
        Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-07 23:13 +0200
          Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-07 23:17 +0200
      French Philosophy in 2024 (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 11:27 +0200
        Re: French Philosophy in 2024 (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 11:37 +0200
          Corona isn't over 2024 (Was: French Philosophy in 2024) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-12 12:20 +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 10:58 +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 00:05 +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 (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-22 12:55 +0200
      Prolegomena by Rappaport (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-07-31 22:15 +0200
        2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain (Re: Prolegomena by Rappaport) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-03 22:50 +0200
          Ok I made a joke, sorry (e: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-03 23:29 +0200
            Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry (e: 2nd Cognitive Turn ~~> no Bayesian Brain) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-03 23:55 +0200
              bullshit bullshit bullshit (Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-04 00:14 +0200
      The two rules (Was: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-04 00:57 +0200
      "Emotional AI" and "Spiritual AI" (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-03 12:28 +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 12:40 +0200
    LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven? (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-04 22:10 +0200
      The anchoring problem in a real world philosopher (Was: LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-08 16:56 +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 17:18 +0200
    Prolog for the pre frontal context (PFC) (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-28 17:28 +0200
    Re: Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC) (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-28 17:31 +0200
    No time for the hairdresser betweeen 09.06.2023 and 11.07.2024 (Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 16:43 +0200
    Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 22:38 +0200
      AI robots from Disney (Was: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-01 23:17 +0200
        I can't stand Mira Murati's Eyewash (Was: AI robots from Disney (Was: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-03 12:01 +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 17:56 +0200
            miramurati bye bye (Re: After blue, green why not start yellow) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-25 22:09 +0200
              Im memoriam Doug Lenant (1950 - 2023) (Re: miramurati bye bye) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-01 00:56 +0100
                2026 the Year Prolog **plonked** Itself [Strawberry Prolog is back] (Was: Im memoriam Doug Lenant (1950 - 2023)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-04 02:20 +0100
                  Spies and Playboys: Don't use insecure E-mail [https://www.jmail.world/ Example] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-04 11:19 +0100
                  Some ANTHEM Cringe Nonsense [More Dead Horses] (Was: 2026 the Year Prolog **plonked** Itself [Strawberry Prolog is back]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-05 09:53 +0100
                    Gecode: Guns N' Roses - Dead Horse (Was: Some ANTHEM Cringe Nonsense [More Dead Horses]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-05 10:21 +0100
                  2026 the Year golang lost its Marbles (Was: 2026 the Year Prolog **plonked** Itself [Strawberry Prolog is back]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-14 09:53 +0100
                    Mark V. Shaney caused Julio Di Egidio Suicide (Re: 2026 the Year golang lost its Marble) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-14 12:51 +0100
                      Is Causal AI simply ReLU (Geoffrey E. Hinton 2010) (Re: Mark V. Shaney caused Julio Di Egidio Suicide) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-17 11:37 +0100
                        Gen Alpha will grow up with Causal AI (Was: Is Causal AI simply ReLU (Geoffrey E. Hinton 2010)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-19 20:00 +0100
                        LRM moving from FOM to TCS [Lean Prover] (Was: Is Causal AI simply ReLU (Geoffrey E. Hinton 2010))) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-27 10:20 +0100
                          Original Subject established by Chinese Scientists [Extenics] (Re: LRM moving from FOM to TCS [Lean Prover]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-02-28 16:36 +0100
                          DeepSeekMath: From psychophysischer Parallelismus to GPRO (Re: Odysseus PTSD: Does Function need Consistency?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-03-06 02:29 +0100
              "superhumaness" excels "stackoverflow reputation" (Was: Im memoriam Doug Lenant (1950 - 2023) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-01 01:08 +0100
                para-governemental institution of violence (Re: "superhumaness" excels "stackoverflow reputation") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-01 11:42 +0100
                Not only $TSLA is on fire sale! [The Decline of Prolog] (Was: "superhumaness" excels "stackoverflow reputation") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-14 13:37 +0100
                  Re: Not only $TSLA is on fire sale! [The Decline of Prolog] (Was: "superhumaness" excels "stackoverflow reputation") Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-14 14:06 +0100
                  Splitting up the Prologue to Prolog Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-05-19 10:54 +0200
      Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-05 19:51 +0200
        Re: Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-05 23:51 +0200
          Salem Aleikum: Maxwella's Equations Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-09 13:15 +0200
            non judicium, sed latrocinium (Re: Salem Aleikum: Maxwella's Equations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-10 08:58 +0200
          Internet was made for cats (Re: Safe Superintelligence (SSI): Now they are dancing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-13 12:58 +0200
            I was there, 3000 years ago (Re: Internet was made for cats) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-13 13:01 +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 13:04 +0200
            supply chain attack (Was: Internet was made for cats( Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-17 22:18 +0200
              Polyfill Supply Chain Attack (Was: supply chain attack) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-11 09:12 +0200
      USA is shitting its pants (Was: Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-16 00:20 +0200
        scryer prolog is dead, BILAI instead? (Was: USA is shitting its pants) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-09-18 15:45 +0200
          Microsoft is plagiarizing my Invention [LLMs under the hood] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-08 16:00 +0200
            Geoffrey Hinton / Nobelpreis für Physik [Re: Microsoft is plagiarizing my Invention [LLMs under the hood]] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-08 16:03 +0200
          thank you for the FLOPs (Was: scryer prolog is dead, BILAI instead?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-12-01 14:34 +0100
            Is old school mode directed compilation dead? (Was: thank you for the FLOPs) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-01-24 17:57 +0100
              Re: Is old school mode directed compilation dead? (Was: thank you for the FLOPs) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-01-24 17:58 +0100
                format/2 doesn't agree with Trealla or SWI (Was: Is old school mode directed compilation dead?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-01-25 14:13 +0100
                DCG Translation with Unification Spillling (Was: Is old school mode directed compilation dead?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-01-25 20:44 +0100
                  Re: DCG Translation with Unification Spillling (Was: Is old school mode directed compilation dead?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-01-25 20:44 +0100
            Will WASM be fast some time? (Was: thank you for the FLOPs) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-04 10:09 +0100
              Re: Will WASM be fast some time? (Was: thank you for the FLOPs) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-03-04 10:13 +0100
        Book Project: WomanLogic (Re: USA is shitting its pants) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 22:25 +0100
          Re: Book Project: WomanLogic (Re: USA is shitting its pants) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-11-14 22:26 +0100
    Happy Birthday 75 Years of Artificial Intelligence Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-23 01:18 +0200
      Does ChatGPT know the difference between "k" and "kkkkkkkkkk"? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-23 01:18 +0200
      What is it like to be a Bat? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-23 22:35 +0200
        How Monkeys see the World (Re: What is it like to be a Bat?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-23 22:45 +0200
      Low-Code Penetration Prediction (Re: Happy Birthday 75 Years of Artificial Intelligence) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-10-30 23:09 +0100

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#14059 — Re: The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

The error is here, taken from his Table 4.1:

A => B, Γ |- A    B, Γ |- C
---------------------------- L=>
      A => B, Γ |- C

When he halucinates duplication also
known as contraction:

 > The premisses are simpler than the condusion
 > in all the rules except possibly in the left
 > premiss of rule L=>. That is the only source
 > of non-termination. Rules other than L=> can
 > produce duplication, if an active formula had
 > another occurrence in the antecedent. This
 > source of duplication comes to an end.

But in backward search the looping is not
caused because of A => B or some such would be
duplicated. None of the L=> rule branches shows
some formula twice. The calculi of Gentzen are

usually already known that propositional proof
search for them can be implement contraction free,
this is not what causes looping. What causes the
looping is simply that the same sequent might

again, other rules then L=> are also not to blame
at all. Just make an example with A atomic, and
you get an infinite decend:

P => B, Γ |- P         B, Γ |- P
--------------------------------- (L=>)
....
P => B, Γ |- P         B, Γ |- P
--------------------------------- (L=>)
P => B, Γ |- P

Mild Shock schrieb:
> The sad news is, the book is only
> worth some fire wood.
> 
> Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical Reasoning
> 
> Interestingly the book uses non-classical
> logic, since it says:
> 
>  > Sequent calculus offers a good possibility for
>  > exhaustive proof search in propositional logic:
>  > We can check through all the possibilities for
>  > malking a derivation. If none of them worked,
>  > i.e., if each had at least one branch in which
>  > no rule applied and no initial sequent was reached,
>  > the given sequent is underivable. The
>  > symbol |/-, is used for underivability.
> 
> And then it has unprovable:
> 
> c. |/- A v ~A
> 
> d. |/- ~~A => A
> 
> But mostlikely the book has a blind spot, some
> serious errors, or totally unfounded claims, since
> for example with such a calculus, the unprovability
> of Peirce’s Law cannot be shown so easily.
> 
> Exhaustive proof search will usually not terminate.
> There are some terminating calculi, like Dyckhoffs
> LJT, but a naive calculus based on Gentzens take
> will not terminate.
> 

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

#14060 — Re: The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Rather read the original, von Plato
takes his wisdom from:

 > The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
 > search of Table 4.1 is a relatively recent invention:
 > Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
 > invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
 > Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
 > theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
 > book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).

But the book by Troelstra (1939-2019) and
Schwichtenberg (1949 -), doesn’t contain a minimal
logic is decidable theorem, based on some “loop
checking”, as indicated by von Plato on page 78.

The problem situation is similar as in Prolog SLD
resolution, where S stands for selection function.
Since the (L=>) inference rule is not invertible, it
involves a selection function σ,

that picks the active formula:

Γ, A => B |- A      Γ, B |- C          A selection function σ did pick
------------------------------- (L=>)  A => B from the left hand side
             Γ, A => B |- C

One selection function might loop, another
selection function might not loop. In Jens Otten
ileansep.p through backtracking over the predicate
select/3 and iterative deepening all selections

are tried. To show unprovability you have to show
looping for all possible selection functions, which
is obviously less trivial than the “root-first proof
search” humbug from von Platos vegan products

store that offers “naturally growing trees”.

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

#14061 — Re: The error in Jan von Platos presentation (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Even Dyckhoffs calculus LJT has (L=>=>) not
invertible and is still bugged by a selection
function dependency. Because of this complication
minimal logic calculi have traditionally been shown

decidable not by means of proof theory but
rather by means of model theory. You can look up
modal companions and then draw upon some finite
model upper bound. The seminal paper is:

 > Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs
 > Fischer & Ladner - 1979
 > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000079900461

It contains the modal logic S4 as a special case:

 > The modal systems K, T, S4, S5 (cf. Ladner [16]) are
 > recognizable subsystems of propositional dynamic logic.
 >
 > K allows only the modality A,
 > T allows only the modality A u λ,
 > S4 allows ordy the modality A*,
 > S5 allows only the modality (A u A-)*.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Rather read the original, von Plato
> takes his wisdom from:
> 
>  > The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
>  > search of Table 4.1 is a relatively recent invention:
>  > Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
>  > invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
>  > Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
>  > theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
>  > book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).
> 
> But the book by Troelstra (1939-2019) and
> Schwichtenberg (1949 -), doesn’t contain a minimal
> logic is decidable theorem, based on some “loop
> checking”, as indicated by von Plato on page 78.
> 
> The problem situation is similar as in Prolog SLD
> resolution, where S stands for selection function.
> Since the (L=>) inference rule is not invertible, it
> involves a selection function σ,
> 
> that picks the active formula:
> 
> Γ, A => B |- A      Γ, B |- C          A selection function σ did pick
> ------------------------------- (L=>)  A => B from the left hand side
>              Γ, A => B |- C
> 
> One selection function might loop, another
> selection function might not loop. In Jens Otten
> ileansep.p through backtracking over the predicate
> select/3 and iterative deepening all selections
> 
> are tried. To show unprovability you have to show
> looping for all possible selection functions, which
> is obviously less trivial than the “root-first proof
> search” humbug from von Platos vegan products
> 
> store that offers “naturally growing trees”.

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

#14074 — Distinction between Computation & Derivation (Was: 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 isomoprhism
> for symple 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.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

#14120 — Prolegomena by Rappaport (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence))

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 isomoprhism
> for symple 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.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

#14128 — 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]

#14129 — Ok I made a joke, sorry (e: 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]

#14130 — Re: Ok I made a joke, sorry (e: 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.

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

#14131 — bullshit bullshit bullshit (Re: 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.
> 
> 

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

#14132 — 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 isomoprhism
> for symple 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.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

#14209 — "Emotional AI" and "Spiritual AI" (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise)

Hi,

ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
interaction is not very "involving".

Could this be improved. There are possibly two
traits missing:

Feelings:
- Emotional states
- Temporariness
- Reaction to external circumstances
- Changeability
- Subjective sensations

Soul:
- Spirituality
- Immortality
- Innermost being
- Essence of an individual
- Deep, enduring aspects of human existence

Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
"Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
"Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.

In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
which is probably at the upper end of credulous
reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could

also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
cooperation is always the better alternative,
e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.

I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
AI” could coexist.  Many religions give Cosmopolitan
magazin style life advice, and not just theological

dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
also sometimes satirically referred to as Chadguru:

Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZqxP5MXFs

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 isomoprhism
> for symple 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.
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

#14210 — Oh shit, too late! (Re: "Emotional AI" and "Spiritual AI" (Re: Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise))

Hi,

ChatGPT is currently showing new tricks to me
and would like to adapt its dialogue style:

"Got it! Emotionally connected communication can
indeed be concise and efficient, without losing depth.
I can focus more on direct responses that still acknowledge
emotional nuances, while avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

Would you like me to adapt this style right away?"

After I switched back to "elaboration", the thing gives
me information about "Spiritual AI":

"- Mindfulness and Meditation Apps: Apps like
Headspace and Calm use AI to guide meditation
and promote mindfulness, which are often
associated with spiritual growth.

- AI-driven Chatbots for Spiritual Guidance: For
example, in 2017, a chatbot named Jwitness was
designed to answer questions based on Jehovah's
Witness teachings.

- AI Prayer Companions: Some faith communities
are experimenting with AI that assists in
prayer or reflection

- Platforms that promote deeper philosophical
discussions, like Replika, which is designed to
engage in thoughtful and sometimes
existential conversations

- For instance, Woebot or Wysa help users navigate
emotions but also touch on existential themes
like purpose and fulfillment."

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
> choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
> interaction is not very "involving".
> 
> Could this be improved. There are possibly two
> traits missing:
> 
> Feelings:
> - Emotional states
> - Temporariness
> - Reaction to external circumstances
> - Changeability
> - Subjective sensations
> 
> Soul:
> - Spirituality
> - Immortality
> - Innermost being
> - Essence of an individual
> - Deep, enduring aspects of human existence
> 
> Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
> "Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
> "Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.
> 
> In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
> which is probably at the upper end of credulous
> reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could
> 
> also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
> cooperation is always the better alternative,
> e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.
> 
> I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
> AI” could coexist.  Many religions give Cosmopolitan
> magazin style life advice, and not just theological
> 
> dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
> app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
> also sometimes satirically referred to as Chadguru:
> 
> Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZqxP5MXFs
> 
> 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 isomoprhism
>> for symple 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.
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>
>>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>>
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
>>
> 

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

#14133 — LLM and Prolog, a Marriage in Heaven? (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence)

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:
> 
> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years
> 
> LoL
> 
> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA

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

#14136 — The anchoring problem in a real world philosopher (Was: 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:
 >
 > 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:
> 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:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

#14137 — 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:
>  >
>  > 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:
>> 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:
>>>
>>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>>
>>>
>>> LoL
>>>
>>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
>>
> 

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

#14166 — Prolog for the pre frontal context (PFC) (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence)

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 context (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 context (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:
> 
> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years
> 
> LoL
> 
> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA

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

#14167 — Re: Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC) (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence)

Corr.: Typo context ~~> cortex

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> 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 context (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 context (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:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

#14171 — No time for the hairdresser betweeen 09.06.2023 and 11.07.2024 (Re: The road to Artificial Intelligence)

If your new zealand retirment plans turn rubble,
because you have to play AI ambassador:

Dass Google einmal so gross wird, hätte ich nicht erwartet - 09.06.2023
https://www.srf.ch/news/wirtschaft/google-pionier-urs-hoelzle-dass-google-einmal-so-gross-wird-haette-ich-nicht-erwartet

Generative AI - Podcast with Urs Hölzle - 11.07.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBrrebQNUR4

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 
> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years
> 
> LoL
> 
> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA

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

#14173 — Holy Shit: AI is cheaper than Humans (Was: The road to Artificial Intelligence)

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:
> 
> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years
> 
> LoL
> 
> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA

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

#14174 — AI robots from Disney (Was: 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:
>>
>> Your new Scrum Master is here! - ChatGPT, 2023
>> https://www.bbntimes.com/companies/ai-will-make-agile-coaches-and-scrum-masters-redundant-in-less-than-2-years 
>>
>>
>> LoL
>>
>> Thomas Alva Edison schrieb am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2018 um 15:28:05 UTC+2:
>>> Prolog Class Signpost - American Style 2018
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQKltWI0NA
> 

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog

csiph-web