zlacker

Knowledge bases should work in principle. There are many issues with filling them manually: a) the schema/ontology/conceptual framework is not guaranteed to be useful especially when done with no specific application in mind b) high cost of adding each fact with little marginal benefit etc. But I don't think it outweighs the issues of "pure" machine learning that much: poor introspection, capricious predictability of what you will get, and if you want to have really structured and semi-reliable information you will probably have to rely, at some point, on something like Wikipedia meta-information (DBpedia). Which is really a knowledge base with its own issues.

I think what really stopped Cyc from getting a wider traction is its closed nature[0]. People do use Princeton WordNet, which you can get for free, even though it's a mess in many aspects. The issue and mentality here is similar to commercial Common Lisp implementations, and the underlying culture is similar (oldschool 80s AI). These projects were shaped with a mindset that major progress in computing will happen with huge government grants and plans[1]. However you interpret the last 30 years, it was not exactly true. It's possible that all these companies earn money for their owners, but they have no industry-wide impact.

I was half-tempted once or twice to use something like Cyc in some project, but it would probably be too much organizational hassle. Especially if it turned out to be something commercial I wouldn't want to be dependent on someone's licensing and financial whims, especially if it can be avoided.

[0] There was OpenCyc for a time, but it was scrapped.

[1] Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20569098

>>stereo+(OP)
> if you want to have really structured and semi-reliable information you will probably have to rely, at some point, on something like Wikipedia meta-information (DBpedia).

Wikidata is also worth considering for that task. It is:

* Directly linked from Wikipedia [1]

* The data source for many infoboxes [2]

* Seeded with data from Wikipedia

* More active and integrated in community

* Larger in total number of concepts

Wikidata also has initiatives in lexicographic data [3] and images [4, 5].

On the subject of Cyc: the CycL "generalization" (#$genls) predicate inspired Wikidata's "subclass of" property [6], which now links together Wikidata's tree of knowledge.

---

1. See "Wikidata" link at left in all articles, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_base

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Infobox_templates_usi...

3. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_data/...

4. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikimedia_Commons/Dev...

5. See "Structured data" tab in image details on Wikimedia Commons, e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mona_Lisa,_by_Leonar...

6. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P279#Archived_cr...

>>stereo+(OP)
I think you are correct about open availability being a large factor in something like Cyc not being widely used and adopted. Structured data sources like Metaweb (now merged with Wikidata), DBPedia, and Wikidata have high practical value, feeding into large knowledge graphs at Google, FB, etc.

I wonder what would have happened with Cyc if twenty years ago a funding manager at DARPA had provided incentives to have Cyc entirely open. This might have led to major code refactoring, many more contributions, etc. even understanding that adding common sense knowledge to Cyc requires special skills and education.