zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
> Cyc grew to contain approximately 30 million assertions at a cost of $200 million and 2,000 person-years. Yet despite Lenat’s repeated predictions of imminent breakthrough, it never came.

That seems like pretty small potatoes compared to how much has been spent on LLMs these days.

Or to put it another way: if global funding for LLM development had been capped at $200m, how many of them would even exist?

>>mcphag+Cd
It's funny, because AI companies are currently spending fortunes on mathematicians, physicists, chemists, software engineers, etc. to create good training data.

Maybe this money would be better spent on creating a Lenat-style ontology, but I guess we'll never know.

>>masfue+ph
We may. LLMs are capable, even arguably at times inventive, but lack the ability to test against ground truth; ontological reasoners can never exceed the implications of the ground truth they're given, but within that scope reason perfectly. These seem like obviously complementary strengths.