zlacker

Well that's how LLMs got going: a critical mass of context until it ignited from its own gravitational pull.

And yes Cyc ontology wasn't consistent. Lenat's point was that it is impossible to have an ontology consistent. Which makes sense given how there is no consistence across human society or even every individual human.

>>varjag+(OP)
I wouldn't say that LLMs have "ignited". I think they've gotten steadily better at autocomplete, but I don't think they've crossed any important threshold on the way to the sort of autonomous intelligence that Lenat was after.

I also don't think it was Lenat's original point to have an inconsistent ontology, as evidenced by his early projects. I agree that he eventually had to admit that. What I'm saying is that when he admitted that he should have recognized that it cut at the heart of what he was up to. Something I think borne out by the fact that he spent his whole life on something that didn't succeed on its own terms.