zlacker

[return to "Doug Lenat has died"]
1. symbol+nx[view] [source] 2023-09-01 20:53:57
>>snewma+(OP)
Doug Lenat, RIP. I worked at Cycorp in Austin from 2000-2006. Taken from us way too soon, Doug none the less had the opportunity to help our country advance military and intelligence community computer science research.

One day, the rapid advancement of AI via LLMs will slow down and attention will again return to logical reasoning and knowledge representation as championed by the Cyc Project, Cycorp, its cyclists and Dr. Doug Lenat.

Why? If NN inference were so fast, we would compile C programs with it instead of using deductive logical inference that is executed efficiently by the compiler.

◧◩
2. halfli+Iz[view] [source] 2023-09-01 21:11:06
>>symbol+nx
> If NN inference were so fast, we would compile C programs with it instead of using deductive logical inference that is executed efficiently by the compiler.

This is the definition of a strawman. Who is claiming that NN inference is always the fastest way to run computation?

Instead of trying to bring down another technology (neural networks), how about you focus on making symbolic methods usable to solve real-world problems; e.g. how can I build a robust email spam detection system with symbolic methods?

◧◩◪
3. xpe+L21[view] [source] 2023-09-02 02:07:37
>>halfli+Iz
> Instead of trying to bring down another technology (neural networks), how about you focus on making symbolic methods usable to solve real-world problems; e.g. how can I build a robust email spam detection system with symbolic methods?

I have two concerns. First, just after pointing out a logical fallacy from someone else, you added a fallacy: the either-or fallacy. (One can criticize a technology and do other things too.)

Second, you selected an example that illustrates a known and predictable weakness of symbolic systems. Still, there are plenty of real-world problems that symbolic systems address well. So your comment cherry-picks.

It appears as if you are trying to land a counter punch here. I'm weary of this kind of conversational pattern. Many of us know that tends to escalate. I don't want HN to go that direction. We all have varying experience and points of view to contribute. Let's try to be charitable, clear, and logical.

◧◩◪◨
4. Neverm+h51[view] [source] 2023-09-02 02:45:44
>>xpe+L21
I am desperately vetting your comment for something I can criticize. An inadvertent, irrelevant, imagined infraction. Anything! But you have left me no opening.

Well done, sir, well done.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. xpe+l61[view] [source] 2023-09-02 03:01:33
>>Neverm+h51
Thanks, but if I didn't blunder here, I can assure you I have in many other places. I strive to be mindful. I try not to "blame" anyone for strong reactions. But when we see certain unhelpful behaviors directed at other people, I try to identify/name it without making it worse. Awareness helps.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. Neverm+5f1[view] [source] 2023-09-02 05:30:40
>>xpe+l61
Without awareness we are just untagged data in a sea of uncompressed noise.
[go to top]