From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Prologers with their pipe dream of Ontologies
with Axioms are most hurt by LLMs that work
more on the basis of Fuzzy Logic.

Even good old "hardmath" is not immune to
this coping mechanism:

"I've cast one of my rare votes-to-delete. It is
a self-answer to the OP's off-topic "question".
Rather than improve the original post, the effort
has been made to "promote" some so-called RETRO
Project by linking YouTube and arxiv.org URLs.
Not worth retaining IMHO.
-- hardmath

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/38051/1482376

Bye
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

I posted this already on sci.math, sci.logic and
sci.physics. Its probably the most important addition
to current LLMs, i.e. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

But somehow the morons of MSE don't understand a bit
whats going on around and about the world. They are
quite immune to progress in AI. Like stupid cows.

------------------ cut here --------------------

More details on RAG, see here RETRO Project (*) at t=12:01:

What's wrong with LLMs and what we should be building instead
Tom Dietterich - 10.07.2023
https://youtu.be/cEyHsMzbZBs

So its not a very new technique now appearing in
generative AIs on the market as well. Some chat bots
are even now able to sometimes show more clearly the

used source documents in their answer. The MSE end
user can still edit a citation by hand to conform
more to the SEN format, if this would be the issue.

Also the MSE end user can explicitly now ask a chat
bot for sources, which he will get most of the time.
Or he can give a chat bot a source for review and

discussion. This works also. So there is not anymore
this "remoteness" of an LLM to the actual virtual
world of documents. Its more that they now inhabit the

actual virtual world and interact with it. Another issue
I see is that in certain countries and educational
institutions, it might the case that working with a

chat bot is something that the students learn,
yet they are not officially allowed to use it on
MSE, because MSE policies are biased on outdated

views about generative AI.

See also:

(*) RETRO Project:

Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens
Sebastian Borgeaud et al. - 7 Feb 2022
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04426

------------------ cut here --------------------

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Prologers with their pipe dream of Ontologies
with Axioms are most hurt by LLMs that work
more on the basis of Fuzzy Logic.

Even good old "hardmath" is not immune to
this coping mechanism:

"I've cast one of my rare votes-to-delete. It is
a self-answer to the OP's off-topic "question".
Rather than improve the original post, the effort
has been made to "promote" some so-called RETRO
Project by linking YouTube and arxiv.org URLs.
Not worth retaining IMHO.
-- hardmath

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/38051/1482376

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

In as far I still hold my position, and you can review
the position in 3-5 years when stupid cows like the MSE
people have done all their learning:

This here:

The content you provide must either be your own original work, or your
summary of the properly referenced work of others. [...] Generative
artificial intelligence tools are not capable of citing the sources of knowledge used up to the standards of the Stack Exchange network. https://math.stackexchange.com/help/gen-ai-policy

Is mostlikely outdated. It ignores RAG:

Was ist Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)? https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/retrieval-augmented-generation/

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I posted this already on sci.math, sci.logic and
sci.physics. Its probably the most important addition
to current LLMs, i.e. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

But somehow the morons of MSE don't understand a bit
whats going on around and about the world. They are
quite immune to progress in AI. Like stupid cows.

------------------ cut here --------------------

More details on RAG, see here RETRO Project (*) at t=12:01:

What's wrong with LLMs and what we should be building instead
Tom Dietterich - 10.07.2023
https://youtu.be/cEyHsMzbZBs

So its not a very new technique now appearing in
generative AIs on the market as well. Some chat bots
are even now able to sometimes show more clearly the

used source documents in their answer. The MSE end
user can still edit a citation by hand to conform
more to the SEN format, if this would be the issue.

Also the MSE end user can explicitly now ask a chat
bot for sources, which he will get most of the time.
Or he can give a chat bot a source for review and

discussion. This works also. So there is not anymore
this "remoteness" of an LLM to the actual virtual
world of documents. Its more that they now inhabit the

actual virtual world and interact with it. Another issue
I see is that in certain countries and educational
institutions, it might the case that working with a

chat bot is something that the students learn,
yet they are not officially allowed to use it on
MSE, because MSE policies are biased on outdated

views about generative AI.

See also:

(*) RETRO Project:

Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens
Sebastian Borgeaud et al. - 7 Feb 2022
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04426

------------------ cut here --------------------

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Prologers with their pipe dream of Ontologies
with Axioms are most hurt by LLMs that work
more on the basis of Fuzzy Logic.

Even good old "hardmath" is not immune to
this coping mechanism:

"I've cast one of my rare votes-to-delete. It is
a self-answer to the OP's off-topic "question".
Rather than improve the original post, the effort
has been made to "promote" some so-called RETRO
Project by linking YouTube and arxiv.org URLs.
Not worth retaining IMHO.
-- hardmath

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/38051/1482376

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

I have switched to use the term "Fuzzy Logic", since
Probability and/or Bayes is surely misleading.
"Fuzzy Logic" is quite old:

In 1965, in his essay Fuzzy Sets[5] - which had been
cited more than 70,000 times by mid-2017 - he first
presented his concept of a theory of fuzzy sets, which
became the nucleus and basis of the rapidly developing
fuzzy logic - (content: The Logic of Uncertainty ) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfi_Zadeh#Leistungen

This is also quite intersting, but PostgreSQL is not
the only database management system, that provides
such retrieval extensions:

Vectors are the new JSON https://www.postgresql.eu/events/pgconfeu2023/sessions/session/4592/slides/435/pgconfeu2023_vectors.pdf

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

In as far I still hold my position, and you can review
the position in 3-5 years when stupid cows like the MSE
people have done all their learning:

This here:

The content you provide must either be your own original work, or your summary of the properly referenced work of others. [...] Generative artificial intelligence tools are not capable of citing the sources of knowledge used up to the standards of the Stack Exchange network. https://math.stackexchange.com/help/gen-ai-policy

Is mostlikely outdated. It ignores RAG:

Was ist Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)? https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/retrieval-augmented-generation/

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I posted this already on sci.math, sci.logic and
sci.physics. Its probably the most important addition
to current LLMs, i.e. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

But somehow the morons of MSE don't understand a bit
whats going on around and about the world. They are
quite immune to progress in AI. Like stupid cows.

------------------ cut here --------------------

More details on RAG, see here RETRO Project (*) at t=12:01:

What's wrong with LLMs and what we should be building instead
Tom Dietterich - 10.07.2023
https://youtu.be/cEyHsMzbZBs

So its not a very new technique now appearing in
generative AIs on the market as well. Some chat bots
are even now able to sometimes show more clearly the

used source documents in their answer. The MSE end
user can still edit a citation by hand to conform
more to the SEN format, if this would be the issue.

Also the MSE end user can explicitly now ask a chat
bot for sources, which he will get most of the time.
Or he can give a chat bot a source for review and

discussion. This works also. So there is not anymore
this "remoteness" of an LLM to the actual virtual
world of documents. Its more that they now inhabit the

actual virtual world and interact with it. Another issue
I see is that in certain countries and educational
institutions, it might the case that working with a

chat bot is something that the students learn,
yet they are not officially allowed to use it on
MSE, because MSE policies are biased on outdated

views about generative AI.

See also:

(*) RETRO Project:

Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens
Sebastian Borgeaud et al. - 7 Feb 2022
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04426

------------------ cut here --------------------

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Prologers with their pipe dream of Ontologies
with Axioms are most hurt by LLMs that work
more on the basis of Fuzzy Logic.

Even good old "hardmath" is not immune to
this coping mechanism:

"I've cast one of my rare votes-to-delete. It is
a self-answer to the OP's off-topic "question".
Rather than improve the original post, the effort
has been made to "promote" some so-called RETRO
Project by linking YouTube and arxiv.org URLs.
Not worth retaining IMHO.
-- hardmath

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/38051/1482376

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

Another example of total nonsense:

CfR: Vienna World Logic Day Lecture
Joao Marques-Silva on Trustable Explainable AI
14 Jan 2025, Online [WLD Event] https://resources.illc.uva.nl/LogicList/newsitem.php?id=12030

The abstract is out of date. XAI was a problem a
few years ago. But it has nothing to do with ChatGPT.
Because ChatGPT is not the machine learning that XAI

is trying to fix. The fuzzy logic in ChatGPT has nothing
to do with deep learning and latent parameters.
ChatGPT throws everything back to natural language and data.

Virtually no invented latent parameter. There are no
ontologies with top and bottom in the vectors. They are
quite flat attribute structures that not only control

words, but also sentences and polysemy. See also:

Sentence embedding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_embedding

This means that the academic world is completely
overwhelmed. And now stare in mental shock. Don't
notice that "traditions" like XAI are already out of date.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

P.S.: Here's the abstract, it's complete nonsense:

Abstract:
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is a mainstay of
trustworthy AI. Recent years have witnessed massive efforts
towards delivering some sort of XAI solutions. Most of these
efforts are based on non-symbolic methods, an d invariably will
produce erroneous results. As a result, even if the predictions of
a machine learning model could be trusted, the lack of reliable
explanations will also make those predictions unworthy of trust.
This talk provides a brief glimpse of the emerging field of logic-based explainable AI, a rigorous alternative to the still widely-used but
extremely problematic non-symbolic methods. https://resources.illc.uva.nl/LogicList/newsitem.php?id=12030

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I have switched to use the term "Fuzzy Logic", since
Probability and/or Bayes is surely misleading.
"Fuzzy Logic" is quite old:

In 1965, in his essay Fuzzy Sets[5] - which had been
cited more than 70,000 times by mid-2017 - he first
presented his concept of a theory of fuzzy sets, which
became the nucleus and basis of the rapidly developing
fuzzy logic - (content: The Logic of Uncertainty  ) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfi_Zadeh#Leistungen

This is also quite intersting, but PostgreSQL is not
the only database management system, that provides
such retrieval extensions:

Vectors are the new JSON https://www.postgresql.eu/events/pgconfeu2023/sessions/session/4592/slides/435/pgconfeu2023_vectors.pdf

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

In as far I still hold my position, and you can review
the position in 3-5 years when stupid cows like the MSE
people have done all their learning:

This here:

The content you provide must either be your own original work, or your
summary of the properly referenced work of others. [...] Generative
artificial intelligence tools are not capable of citing the sources of
knowledge used up to the standards of the Stack Exchange network.
https://math.stackexchange.com/help/gen-ai-policy

Is mostlikely outdated. It ignores RAG:

Was ist Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)?
https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/retrieval-augmented-generation/

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I posted this already on sci.math, sci.logic and
sci.physics. Its probably the most important addition
to current LLMs, i.e. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

But somehow the morons of MSE don't understand a bit
whats going on around and about the world. They are
quite immune to progress in AI. Like stupid cows.

------------------ cut here --------------------

More details on RAG, see here RETRO Project (*) at t=12:01:

What's wrong with LLMs and what we should be building instead
Tom Dietterich - 10.07.2023
https://youtu.be/cEyHsMzbZBs

So its not a very new technique now appearing in
generative AIs on the market as well. Some chat bots
are even now able to sometimes show more clearly the

used source documents in their answer. The MSE end
user can still edit a citation by hand to conform
more to the SEN format, if this would be the issue.

Also the MSE end user can explicitly now ask a chat
bot for sources, which he will get most of the time.
Or he can give a chat bot a source for review and

discussion. This works also. So there is not anymore
this "remoteness" of an LLM to the actual virtual
world of documents. Its more that they now inhabit the

actual virtual world and interact with it. Another issue
I see is that in certain countries and educational
institutions, it might the case that working with a

chat bot is something that the students learn,
yet they are not officially allowed to use it on
MSE, because MSE policies are biased on outdated

views about generative AI.

See also:

(*) RETRO Project:

Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens
Sebastian Borgeaud et al. - 7 Feb 2022
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04426

------------------ cut here --------------------

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Prologers with their pipe dream of Ontologies
with Axioms are most hurt by LLMs that work
more on the basis of Fuzzy Logic.

Even good old "hardmath" is not immune to
this coping mechanism:

"I've cast one of my rare votes-to-delete. It is
a self-answer to the OP's off-topic "question".
Rather than improve the original post, the effort
has been made to "promote" some so-called RETRO
Project by linking YouTube and arxiv.org URLs.
Not worth retaining IMHO.
-- hardmath

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/38051/1482376

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.prolog

Hi,

As I said, “traditions” are a hindrance.
XAI was itself promoted by DARPA:

XAI: Explainable Artificial Intelligence

https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/explainable-artificial-intelligence

This means that certain machine learning
methods have been problematized. But that
was 2018, and it's still like a virus
in people's minds.

You just have to say the keyword machine
learning and then XAI comes up. The academics
have been conditioned like a Pavlovian dog.
And you can't get out of this "tradition" anymore.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Another example of total nonsense:

CfR: Vienna World Logic Day Lecture
Joao Marques-Silva on Trustable Explainable AI
14 Jan 2025, Online [WLD Event] https://resources.illc.uva.nl/LogicList/newsitem.php?id=12030

The abstract is out of date.  XAI was a problem a
few years ago.  But it has nothing to do with ChatGPT.
Because ChatGPT is not the machine learning that XAI

is trying to fix. The fuzzy logic in ChatGPT has nothing
to do with deep learning and latent parameters.
ChatGPT throws everything back to natural language and data.

Virtually no invented latent parameter. There are no
ontologies with top and bottom in the vectors.  They are
quite flat attribute structures that not only control

words, but also sentences and polysemy.  See also:

Sentence embedding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_embedding

This means that the academic world is completely
overwhelmed.  And now stare in mental shock.  Don't
notice that "traditions" like XAI are already out of date.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen

P.S.: Here's the abstract, it's complete nonsense:

Abstract:
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) is a mainstay of
trustworthy AI.  Recent years have witnessed massive efforts
towards delivering some sort of XAI solutions. Most of these
efforts are based on non-symbolic methods, an d invariably will
produce erroneous results. As a result, even if the predictions of
a machine learning model could be trusted, the lack of reliable
explanations will also make those predictions unworthy of trust.
This talk provides a brief glimpse of the emerging field of logic-based explainable AI, a rigorous alternative to the still widely-used but
extremely problematic non-symbolic methods. https://resources.illc.uva.nl/LogicList/newsitem.php?id=12030

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I have switched to use the term "Fuzzy Logic", since
Probability and/or Bayes is surely misleading.
"Fuzzy Logic" is quite old:

In 1965, in his essay Fuzzy Sets[5] - which had been
cited more than 70,000 times by mid-2017 - he first
presented his concept of a theory of fuzzy sets, which
became the nucleus and basis of the rapidly developing
fuzzy logic - (content: The Logic of Uncertainty  )
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfi_Zadeh#Leistungen

This is also quite intersting, but PostgreSQL is not
the only database management system, that provides
such retrieval extensions:

Vectors are the new JSON
https://www.postgresql.eu/events/pgconfeu2023/sessions/session/4592/slides/435/pgconfeu2023_vectors.pdf


Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

In as far I still hold my position, and you can review
the position in 3-5 years when stupid cows like the MSE
people have done all their learning:

This here:

The content you provide must either be your own original work, or
your summary of the properly referenced work of others. [...]
Generative artificial intelligence tools are not capable of citing
the sources of knowledge used up to the standards of the Stack
Exchange network. https://math.stackexchange.com/help/gen-ai-policy

Is mostlikely outdated. It ignores RAG:

Was ist Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)?
https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/retrieval-augmented-generation/

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

I posted this already on sci.math, sci.logic and
sci.physics. Its probably the most important addition
to current LLMs, i.e. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG).

But somehow the morons of MSE don't understand a bit
whats going on around and about the world. They are
quite immune to progress in AI. Like stupid cows.

------------------ cut here --------------------

More details on RAG, see here RETRO Project (*) at t=12:01:

What's wrong with LLMs and what we should be building instead
Tom Dietterich - 10.07.2023
https://youtu.be/cEyHsMzbZBs

So its not a very new technique now appearing in
generative AIs on the market as well. Some chat bots
are even now able to sometimes show more clearly the

used source documents in their answer. The MSE end
user can still edit a citation by hand to conform
more to the SEN format, if this would be the issue.

Also the MSE end user can explicitly now ask a chat
bot for sources, which he will get most of the time.
Or he can give a chat bot a source for review and

discussion. This works also. So there is not anymore
this "remoteness" of an LLM to the actual virtual
world of documents. Its more that they now inhabit the

actual virtual world and interact with it. Another issue
I see is that in certain countries and educational
institutions, it might the case that working with a

chat bot is something that the students learn,
yet they are not officially allowed to use it on
MSE, because MSE policies are biased on outdated

views about generative AI.

See also:

(*) RETRO Project:

Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens
Sebastian Borgeaud et al. - 7 Feb 2022
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04426

------------------ cut here --------------------

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:

Hi,

Prologers with their pipe dream of Ontologies
with Axioms are most hurt by LLMs that work
more on the basis of Fuzzy Logic.

Even good old "hardmath" is not immune to
this coping mechanism:

"I've cast one of my rare votes-to-delete. It is
a self-answer to the OP's off-topic "question".
Rather than improve the original post, the effort
has been made to "promote" some so-called RETRO
Project by linking YouTube and arxiv.org URLs.
Not worth retaining IMHO.
-- hardmath

https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/a/38051/1482376

Bye

--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114