Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #15940
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.prolog |
| Subject | The recursive AI bottom line (Was: What will microsoft say, will they buy it?) |
| Date | 2026-09-24 15:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119393s$a6b6$2@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | <107cdg8$3ok7g$1@solani.org> <10p44s1$16ps$1@solani.org> <1191b63$6fpr$1@solani.org> <119358v$a3jo$1@solani.org> <11938ti$a6b6$1@solani.org> |
Hi, So every non AGI development is still an AGI development. Bye Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > Disclaimer: While clairvoyant valuation has a heavy > math based literature, that can be based on a couple of > approaches from rational reasoning, the LLM literature > might be a little messy and less known, > > so the above is what an LLM gave me. I didn't select and > only did cherry picking, to show the drift. EyeProlog is > also a little disappointing, more postulating some human > driven science loop, not a semi-automated experimenter? > > The rigid bento forms logical english that requires > million mouse clicks, might also hit a wall, since LLMs > are smoother. Since Excel and VB already solved the "business- > user-readable rule" problem decades ago with localized > > function names and cell references. Their solutions to > the textit feature itselfs, are probably more mature. > But given that Microsoft has its foot directly into AI > laptops and does their own model development, > > there are only a few chances that they would be interested. > Maybe there are some take aways from a Prolog implementation > that they then will happily patent and reimplement on their > own, just like they didn't adopt Java but developed C#. > > Bye > > Mild Shock schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> Its really amazing how advanced the 80’s were concerning >> the early expert system wave. You already found expert systems >> or fault diagnosis systems, that sorted their abduction questions >> >> via a clairvoyant value computation. It refers to a theoretical >> benchmark in decision analysis, maintenance optimization, >> and information economics. I didn’t find some highly visible >> >> Prolog implementation yet, but I might be mistaken. s(CASP) >> doesn’t have it yet right? Neither does Web Prolog mention >> the concept yet? LLMs use clairvoyant value as well, obviously, >> >> when they stir the dialog. Maybe as an emergent phaenomenon? >> >> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ >> │ HOW LLMS VALUE PERFECT INFORMATION │ >> └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ >> │ >> ┌─────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐ >> ▼ ▼ >> ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ >> │ EXPLICIT SCAFFOLDING │ │ EMERGENT >> PHENOMENON │ >> ├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ >> │ The architecture forces a VPI │ │ Autoregressive >> next-token │ >> │ calculation (e.g., using │ │ prediction mirrors human >> │ >> │ information entropy metrics). │ │ cost-benefit dialogue. >> │ >> └─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘ >> One might spin the idea further and just say the valuation >> doesn’t predict some physical system behaviour, but rather >> reflects user preferences. See also: >> >> Evaluating User-Agent Collaboration >> https://arxiv.org/html/2608.27818v1 >> >> LLMs can be also bad clairvoyants: >> >> LLMs Fail to Let Go >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.25337 >> >> Bye >> >> Disclaimer: While clairvoyant valuation has a heavy math >> based literature, that can be based on a couple of approaches >> from rational reasoning, the LLM literature might be a little >> >> messy and less known, so the above is what an LLM gave me. >> I didn’t select and only did cherry picking, to show the drift… >> >> Mild Shock schrieb: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Creating a compare/3 on cyclic terms is a fascinating >>> topic. Obviously the following implementation would work, >>> namely transform a cyclic term into a non-cyclic representation, >>> >>> and compare its representation: >>> >>> compare_rep(C, X, Y) :- >>> rep(X, A), >>> rep(Y, B), >>> compare(C, A, B). >>> >>> Provided rep is injective, if the non-cyclic representation can be >>> completely ordered, the original cyclic terms will be also >>> completely ordered. One might add further requirements to >>> >>> rep, namely that it is conservative, ordering acyclic terms in >>> the standard order as require by the ISO core standard. This >>> was a discussion on SWI discourse a few months ago. But it >>> >>> never adressed the issue how to efficiently sort/2 or keysort/2, >>> when the involved lists or pair lists contain cyclic terms. Now >>> since AI has become so omniscent, it easily handled me a tip, >>> >>> both Gemini(*) and Deepseek(**) did that, and pointed me to the >>> Schwartzian Transform. Possibly even more ideal when one >>> has ultra fast minimization. The idea is very simple, sketch: >>> >>> 1. List' = [ (rep(x),x) | x e List ] >>> 2. List'' = sort_on(π1, List') %% sort on 1st argument >>> 3. Result = [ π2(x) | x e List''] %% project to 2nd argument >>> >>> The benefit when measured against predsort/3, that would use >>> compare_rep/2, is that predsort might call O(N log(N)) or more >>> comparisons. While the above only does a collation key computation >>> >>> once per element, making it O(N). AI being quite a buddy here! >>> >>> Bye >>> >>> See also: >>> >>> Schwartzian transform >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartzian_transform >>> >>> (*) >>> https://gemini.google.com/ >>> (**) >>> https://www.deepseek.com/ >>> >>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> How would we do a reverse sorted map? >>>> >>>> I find in Java: >>>> >>>> TreeMap(Comparator<? super K> comparator) >>>> Constructs a new, empty tree map, ordered >>>> according to the given comparator. >>>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/TreeMap.html >>>> >>>> Or in Dogelog Player: >>>> >>>> tree_new(T): >>>> tree_new(T, F): >>>> The predicate succeeds in R with a new red-black tree. >>>> The binary predicate allows specifying a term compare F. >>>> https://www.dogelog.ch/typtab/doclet/book/12_lang/05_libraries/03_util/06_tree.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is an example, using the destructive API. But >>>> the same constructor works also for the non-destructive API. >>>> >>>> ?- tree_new(_T), tree_add(_T, 0rInf, foo), >>>> tree_add(_T, 0rNaN, bar), tree_pairs(_T, L). >>>> L = [0rNaN-bar, 0rInf-foo]. >>>> >>>> And now using a comparator modifier, aggregate with a comparator, >>>> as a closure. Some Joy of Higher Order logic programming: >>>> >>>> reverse(C, R, X, Y) :- call(C, R, Y, X). >>>> >>>> ?- tree_new(_T,reverse(compare)), tree_add(_T, 0rInf, foo), >>>> tree_add(_T, 0rNaN, bar), tree_pairs(_T, L). >>>> L = [0rInf-foo, 0rNaN-bar]. >>>> >>>> ?- tree_new(_T,reverse(reverse(compare))), tree_add(_T, 0rInf, foo), >>>> tree_add(_T, 0rNaN, bar), tree_pairs(_T, L). >>>> L = [0rNaN-bar, 0rInf-foo]. >>>> >>>> Just toying around with my new NaNs. >>>> >>>> Have Fun! >>>> >>>> Bye >>>> >>>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Functional requirement: >>>>> >>>>> ?- Y = g(_,_), X = f(Y,C,D,Y), term_singletons(X, L), >>>>> L == [C,D]. >>>>> >>>>> ?- Y = g(A,X,B), X = f(Y,C,D), term_singletons(X, L), >>>>> L == [A,B,C,D]. >>>>> >>>>> Non-Functional requirement: >>>>> >>>>> ?- member(N,[5,10,15]), time(singletons(N)), fail; true. >>>>> % Zeit 1 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 4046000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36 >>>>> % Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1352000, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36 >>>>> % Zeit 3 ms, GC 0 ms, Lips 1355333, Uhr 11.08.2025 01:36 >>>>> true. >>>>> >>>>> Can your Prolog system do that? >>>>> >>>>> P.S.: Benchmark was: >>>>> >>>>> singletons(N) :- >>>>> hydra2(N,Y), >>>>> between(1,1000,_), term_singletons(Y,_), fail; true. >>>>> >>>>> hydra2(0, _) :- !. >>>>> hydra2(N, s(X,X)) :- >>>>> M is N-1, >>>>> hydra2(M, X). >>>>> >>>>> Bye >>>> >>> >> >
Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
VIP0909: VibeCore Improvement Proposal Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-11 11:35 +0200
VIP0111: Does a Map have a Constructor? (Was: VIP0909: VibeCore Improvement Proposal) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-03-14 18:11 +0100
100% Prolog Hash map beats SWI C Trie (Was: VIP0111: Does a Map have a Constructor?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-03-17 04:07 +0100
AI Accelerators and ISO Prolog multi-threading (Was: VIP0111: Does a Map have a Constructor?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-29 15:28 +0200
Actor/Erlang is dead, no Thread and Mailbox conflation [golang channels] (Was: AI Accelerators and ISO Prolog multi-threading) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-29 15:41 +0200
Summer Challenge: libSQL = Prolog+Modes [VDBE versus π-WAM] (Was: Actor/Erlang is dead, no Thread and Mailbox conflation [golang channels]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-07-30 11:22 +0200
Work slicing can simulate AbortController (Was: Summer Challenge: libSQL = Prolog+Modes [VDBE versus π-WAM]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-01 13:23 +0200
Introducing an asm/1 statement in a Prolog system (Was: AI Accelerators and ISO Prolog multi-threading) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 20:21 +0200
Introducing an asm/1 statement in a Prolog system (Re: AI Accelerators and ISO Prolog multi-threading) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-08-09 20:25 +0200
MADV_HAWAII: Aloha from the 300ms Abyss [Exception Handling in Prolog] (Re: AI Accelerators and ISO Prolog multi-threading) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-10 23:42 +0200
MADV_HAWAII: Aloha from Minimal Terms (Was: MADV_HAWAII: Aloha from the 300ms Abyss) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-14 14:43 +0200
MADV_HAWAII: Decomposing the Ouroboros Road (Was: MADV_HAWAII: Aloha from the 300ms Abyss) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-20 18:30 +0200
Food for thought: Schwartzian Transform (Was: VIP0111: Does a Map have a Constructor?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-23 22:01 +0200
Food for thought: Bayesian Experimental Designer (Was: Food for thought: Schwartzian Transform) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-24 14:32 +0200
What will microsoft say, will they buy it? (Was: Food for thought: Bayesian Experimental Designer) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-24 15:34 +0200
The recursive AI bottom line (Was: What will microsoft say, will they buy it?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-09-24 15:38 +0200
csiph-web