Minimal Logics in the 2020's: A Meteoric Rise

Discussion:

Add Reply

Mild Shock

2024-07-04 22:05:32 UTC

Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:

Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24

Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
for simple types:

----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A

Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B

Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B

And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,

but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL

Recommended reading so far:

Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664

The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C

Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal

logic without embedded implication.

sobriquet

2024-07-05 01:50:01 UTC

Permalink

How about quantum logic where we have not just True and False but also
a superposition of True and False as a third option (where special
conditions apply).

Just like the double-slit experiment in physics that seems to contradict
a variation of the pigeon hole principle. If a particle goes through a
barrier where there are two ways to traverse the barrier, it
will go either one way or the other way in case we detect the way
the particle went through the barrier, but in case we refrain from
detecting this information, the particle will go both ways and we can
observe an interference pattern, where the particle interferes with
itself as a consequence of traversing both ways simultaneously.

In classical logic, we would have the intuition that there are only
two possibilities, but modern physics seems to suggest that we can't
really rely on the principle of the excluded middle (or at least
that the principle of the excluded middle only holds under special
circumstances).

Mild Shock

2024-07-05 02:06:01 UTC

Permalink

Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?

Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
paracomplete logic. It rejects both:

/* not provable in minimal logic */
A, ~A |- B % EFQ

/* not provable in minimal logic */
|- ~A v A % LEM

Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?

I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.

Post by sobriquet

How about quantum logic where we have not just True and False but also
a superposition of True and False as a third option (where special
conditions apply).
Just like the double-slit experiment in physics that seems to contradict
a variation of the pigeon hole principle. If a particle goes through a
barrier where there are two ways to traverse the barrier, it
will go either one way or the other way in case we detect the way
the particle went through the barrier, but in case we refrain from
detecting this information, the particle will go both ways and we can
observe an interference pattern, where the particle interferes with
itself as a consequence of traversing both ways simultaneously.
In classical logic, we would have the intuition that there are only
two possibilities, but modern physics seems to suggest that we can't
really rely on the principle of the excluded middle (or at least
that the principle of the excluded middle only holds under special
circumstances).
http://youtu.be/ciLv8xGy33I

sobriquet

2024-07-05 03:24:20 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mild Shock
Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?

I dunno.. but I reckon that if classical logic gets rejected,
that also undermines the concept of a set (or equivalent concepts like
classes or types), since that closely aligns with logic in structure.
Perhaps we can have quantum sets where we can be in a superposition of
including and excluding an element.
Maybe that could resolve the Russel Paradox where the
set of all sets is in a superposition of being both an element of
itself and not being an element of itself.

Post by Mild Shock
Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
     /* not provable in minimal logic */
     A, ~A |- B       % EFQ
     /* not provable in minimal logic */
     |- ~A v A        % LEM
Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?
I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.

[..]

Mild Shock

2024-07-05 04:47:02 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Check out

Citation: V. N. Grishin, “Predicate and set-theoretic calculi based on
logic without contractions”, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 45:1
(1981), 47–68; Math. USSR-Izv., 18:1 (1982), 41–59
https://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=im&paperid=1547&option_lang=eng

Quite interesting idea. If you reformulate
a paradox like for example the liar in
its subliminal form:

X <=> ~X

Which is the same as,
using (A <=> B) := (A => B) & (B => A):

(X => ~X) & (X => ~X)

But we can reformulate the biconditional also as,
using (A <=> B) := (A & B) | (~A & ~B):

(X & ~X) | (~X & ~~X)

If we are allowed to replace ~~X by X, we get:

(X & ~X) | (~X & X)

If & is commutative, we get:

(X & ~X) | (X & ~X)

Now one would use contraction A | A = A, to
get a violation of the Law of Non Contradiction:

X & ~X

But what if this last step, the contraction is
not available per se in the logic? Unfortunately
minimal logic has contraction, you can prove:

/* valid in minimal logic */
A | A => A

Post by sobriquet

Post by Mild Shock
Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?

Post by Mild Shock
Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
      /* not provable in minimal logic */
      A, ~A |- B       % EFQ
      /* not provable in minimal logic */
      |- ~A v A        % LEM
Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?
I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.

[..]

Mild Shock

2024-07-05 04:48:56 UTC

Permalink

Curry's Paradox works also in minimal logic.
It is not barred by minimal logic.

Curry's Paradox and that it still works in
minimal logic is one of the results

of Curry's exploration of this logic, and
whether it can resolve some paradoxes.

But minimal logic doesn't do that.

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Check out
Citation: V. N. Grishin, “Predicate and set-theoretic calculi based on
logic without contractions”, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 45:1
(1981), 47–68; Math. USSR-Izv., 18:1 (1982), 41–59
https://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=im&paperid=1547&option_lang=eng
Quite interesting idea. If you reformulate
a paradox like for example the liar in
X <=> ~X
Which is the same as,
(X => ~X) & (X => ~X)
But we can reformulate the biconditional also as,
(X & ~X) | (~X & ~~X)
(X & ~X) | (~X & X)
(X & ~X) | (X & ~X)
Now one would use contraction A | A = A, to
X & ~X
But what if this last step, the contraction is
not available per se in the logic? Unfortunately
/* valid in minimal logic */
A | A => A

Post by sobriquet

Post by Mild Shock
Does Quantum Logic (which one?) have a
Curry Howard isomorphism somehow?

Post by Mild Shock
Minimal logic is a praconsistent and
      /* not provable in minimal logic */
      A, ~A |- B       % EFQ
      /* not provable in minimal logic */
      |- ~A v A        % LEM
Maybe therefore minimal logic has also
some applications in Quantum Logics?
I saw quantum logic feature in another
conference, its not explicitly listed
in the NCL'24 announcement.

[..]

Mild Shock

2024-07-05 02:07:29 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

A few years ago I was impressed by
the output of either Negri or Plato,
or the two together.

Now they are just an annoyance, all
they show is that they are neither talented
nor have sufficient training.

Terminating intuitionistic calculus
Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI

Beside the too obvious creative idea and motive
behind it, it is most likely complete useless
nonsense. Already this presentation in the

paper shows utter incompetence:

Γ, A → B ⊢ A Γ, A → B, B ⊢ Δ
----------------------------------------
Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ

Everybody in the business knows that the
looping, resulting from the A → B copying,
is a fact. But can be reduced since the

copying on the right hand side is not needed.

Γ, A → B ⊢ A Γ, B ⊢ Δ
--------------------------------
Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ

The above variant is enough. Just like Dragalin
presented the calculus. I really wish people
would completely understand these master pieces,

before they even touch multi consequent calculi:

Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof Theory
Albert Grigorevich Dragalin - 1988
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821845209

Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic
Roy Dyckhoff - 1992
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fp//courses/atp/cmuonly/D92.pdf

Whats the deeper semantic (sic!) explanation of the
two calculi GHPC and GCPC? I have a Kripke semantics
explanation in my notes, didn't release it yet.

Have Fun!

Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.

Mild Shock

2024-07-05 02:08:56 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

I am not halucinating that Negri is nonsense:

This calculus does not terminate (e.g. on Peirce’s
formula). Negri [42] shows how to add a loop-checking
mechanism to ensure termination. The effect on complexity
isn’t yet clear; but the loop-checking is expensive.

Intuitionistic Decision Procedures since Gentzen
The Jägerfest - 2013
https://apt13.unibe.ch/slides/Dyckhoff.pdf

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
A few years ago I was impressed by
the output of either Negri or Plato,
or the two together.
Now they are just an annoyance, all
they show is that they are neither talented
nor have sufficient training.

Terminating intuitionistic calculus
Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI

Beside the too obvious creative idea and motive
behind it, it is most likely complete useless
nonsense. Already this presentation in the
Γ, A → B ⊢ A           Γ, A → B, B ⊢ Δ
----------------------------------------
           Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ
Everybody in the business knows that the
looping, resulting from the A → B copying,
is a fact. But can be reduced since the
copying on the right hand side is not needed.
Γ, A → B ⊢ A           Γ, B ⊢ Δ
--------------------------------
        Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ
The above variant is enough. Just like Dragalin
presented the calculus. I really wish people
would completely understand these master pieces,
Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof Theory
Albert Grigorevich Dragalin - 1988
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821845209
Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic
Roy Dyckhoff - 1992
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fp//courses/atp/cmuonly/D92.pdf
Whats the deeper semantic (sic!) explanation of the
two calculi GHPC and GCPC? I have a Kripke semantics
explanation in my notes, didn't release it yet.
Have Fun!

Mild Shock

2024-07-13 06:18:30 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Generally speaking it is not “elements” if

Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical
Reasoning) … excellent book

The ancient Greek had a well developed sense
of constructivity in their geometry, for example
they distinguished between compass-and-straightedge
constructions, and neuseis constructions.

Constructive logic somehow appeals to this sense,
but its not the only way to do non-classical logics.
In a broader sense in mathematical logic its just
the same discipline as the axiomatic method which

is already found in Euklids geometry but applied
to logic itself. Now it is evident, by the correspondence
that I had, that there are people employed in philosophy
departments saying a A <=> B is void if we have:

CL |- A
CL |- B
-------------------
CL |- A <=> B

They never played the axiomatic method and replaced
classical logic (CL) by something else. Lets make an
example from Euclids geometry. Thales theorem and
Pythagroas theorem are both true? So they are equivalent?

So why bother even write a booklet like Euklid elements?

if you need to find the center of a circle
https://youtube.com/shorts/iQeFCnSo41g

Bye

Hi,
This calculus does not terminate (e.g. on Peirce’s
formula). Negri [42] shows how to add a loop-checking
mechanism to ensure termination. The effect on complexity
isn’t yet clear; but the loop-checking is expensive.
Intuitionistic Decision Procedures since Gentzen
The Jägerfest - 2013
https://apt13.unibe.ch/slides/Dyckhoff.pdf
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-07-05 04:49:50 UTC

Permalink

The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,

Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructive
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics.
https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.

Mild Shock

2024-07-07 21:10:43 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

There are possibly issues of interdisciplinary
work. For example Sorensen & Urzyczyn in their
Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism say that
the logic LP has no name in literature.

On the other hand Segerbergs paper, shows that
a logic LP, in his labeling JP, that stems from
accepting Peice's Law is equivalent to a logic
accepting Curry's Refutation rule,

i.e the logic JE with:

Γ, A => B |- A
-----------------
Γ |- A

But the logic JE also implies that LEM was added!

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,

Mild Shock

2024-07-07 21:18:37 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

This has only become talk of the town recently
under the heading of Constructive S4 Modal Logic
or CS4. It somehow demonstrates that prejudice

against computer science, like lambda calculus is
too abstract, is possibly unfounded. The challenge
would be to draw connections and foster inter-

disciplinary dialog. The next challenge would
be to distill a simple didactical extract of it
and draw road maps!

Categorical and Kripke Semantics for Constructive S4 Modal Logic
Alechina et al. - 2003
https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~exr/papers/csl01.pdf

What they call fallible worlds, does Segerberg
1968 call abnormal worlds.

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
There are possibly issues of interdisciplinary
work. For example Sorensen & Urzyczyn in their
Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism say that
the logic LP has no name in literature.
On the other hand Segerbergs paper, shows that
a logic LP, in his labeling JP, that stems from
accepting Peice's Law is equivalent to a logic
accepting Curry's Refutation rule,
     Γ, A => B |- A
    -----------------
         Γ |- A
But the logic JE also implies that LEM was added!
Bye

Post by Mild Shock
The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,
> Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructive
> proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
> has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
> classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
> that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
> seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics.
> https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf

Post by Mild Shock
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomorphism
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.

Mild Shock

2024-07-12 09:30:26 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.

But its so easy, was just watching:

Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel

At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
you can use to explain the Curry-Howard isomorphism:

1 *\ Γ = Context
| \
| * 3 t = λ-Expression
| /
2 */ α = Type

The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.

But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?

Bye

Mild Shock

2024-07-12 09:38:47 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Actually thridness is not only the art of making
three-fold divisions. Usually one aims a finding
a 3 that is the relation between 1 and 2, so that

we have this relation satisfied:

3(1, 2)

Of course we can have the stance, and say that |-
does that already. Only |- is highly ambigious,
if you see Γ |- α you don't know what was the last

inference rule applied. But for proof extraction
you want exactly know that.

Bye

P.S.: And Peirce isn't wrong when he says thirdness
is enough, just take set theory, which can do all
of mathematics? Its based on this thirdness only:

x ∈ y

The set membership. But set membership is as ugly as |-,
it also doesn't say why an element belongs to a set.

LoL

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel
http://youtu.be/5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
1 *\        Γ = Context
| \
| * 3    t = λ-Expression
| /
2 */        α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-07-12 10:23:05 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

In 2023 Dr. Ben Goertzel praised back to
normal, today in 2024 everybody has mysterious
eyeinfections and a new wave is reported:

Flirt-Varianten: Sommer-Coronawelle nimmt Fahrt auf
https://www.mdr.de/wissen/medizin-gesundheit/corona-fallzahlen-sommerwelle-100.html

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Actually thridness is not only the art of making
three-fold divisions. Usually one aims a finding
a 3 that is the relation between 1 and 2, so that
3(1, 2)
Of course we can have the stance, and say that |-
does that already. Only |- is highly ambigious,
if you see Γ |- α you don't know what was the last
inference rule applied. But for proof extraction
you want exactly know that.
Bye
P.S.: And Peirce isn't wrong when he says thirdness
is enough, just take set theory, which can do all
x ∈ y
The set membership. But set membership is as ugly as |-,
it also doesn't say why an element belongs to a set.
LoL

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel
http://youtu.be/5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
1 *\        Γ = Context
   | \
   | * 3    t = λ-Expression
   | /
2 */        α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-07-12 10:36:41 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Forget face masks, it might be the
beginning of a new experience for the world!

Coronaviruses are oculotropic
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7241406/

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
In 2023 Dr. Ben Goertzel praised back to
normal, today in 2024 everybody has mysterious
Flirt-Varianten: Sommer-Coronawelle nimmt Fahrt auf
https://www.mdr.de/wissen/medizin-gesundheit/corona-fallzahlen-sommerwelle-100.html
Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel
http://youtu.be/5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
1 *\        Γ = Context
   | \
   | * 3    t = λ-Expression
   | /
2 */        α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-07-13 08:33:58 UTC

Permalink

The sad news is, the book is only
worth some fire wood.

Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical Reasoning)

Interestingly the book uses non-classical

Sequent calculus offers a good possibility for
We can check through all the possibilities for
malking a derivation. If none of them worked,
i.e., if each had at least one branch in which
no rule applied and no initial sequent was reached,
the given sequent is underivable. The
symbol |/-, is used for underivability.

And then it has unprovable:

c. |/- A v ~A

d. |/- ~~A => A

But mostlikely the book has a blind spot, some
serious errors, or totally unfounded claims, since
for example with such a calculus, the unprovability
of Peirce’s Law cannot be shown so easily.

Exhaustive proof search will usually not terminate.
There are some terminating calculi, like Dyckhoffs
LJT, but a naive calculus based on Gentzens take
will not terminate.

Mild Shock

2024-07-13 08:56:21 UTC

Permalink

The error is here, taken from his Table 4.1:

A => B, Γ |- A B, Γ |- C
---------------------------- L=>
A => B, Γ |- C

When he halucinates duplication also

The premisses are simpler than the condusion
in all the rules except possibly in the left
premiss of rule L=>. That is the only source
of non-termination. Rules other than L=> can
produce duplication, if an active formula had
another occurrence in the antecedent. This
source of duplication comes to an end.

But in backward search the looping is not
caused because of A => B or some such would be
duplicated. None of the L=> rule branches shows
some formula twice. The calculi of Gentzen are

usually already known that propositional proof
search for them can be implement contraction free,
this is not what causes looping. What causes the
looping is simply that the same sequent might

again, other rules then L=> are also not to blame
at all. Just make an example with A atomic, and
you get an infinite decend:

P => B, Γ |- P B, Γ |- P
--------------------------------- (L=>)
....
P => B, Γ |- P B, Γ |- P
--------------------------------- (L=>)
P => B, Γ |- P

The sad news is, the book is only
worth some fire wood.
Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical Reasoning)
Interestingly the book uses non-classical

c. |/- A v ~A
d. |/- ~~A => A
But mostlikely the book has a blind spot, some
serious errors, or totally unfounded claims, since
for example with such a calculus, the unprovability
of Peirce’s Law cannot be shown so easily.
Exhaustive proof search will usually not terminate.
There are some terminating calculi, like Dyckhoffs
LJT, but a naive calculus based on Gentzens take
will not terminate.

Mild Shock

2024-07-13 22:04:15 UTC

Permalink

Rather read the original, von Plato

The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).

But the book by Troelstra (1939-2019) and
Schwichtenberg (1949 -), doesn’t contain a minimal
logic is decidable theorem, based on some “loop
checking”, as indicated by von Plato on page 78.

The problem situation is similar as in Prolog SLD
resolution, where S stands for selection function.
Since the (L=>) inference rule is not invertible, it
involves a selection function σ,

that picks the active formula:

Γ, A => B |- A Γ, B |- C A selection function σ did pick
------------------------------- (L=>) A => B from the left hand side
Γ, A => B |- C

One selection function might loop, another
selection function might not loop. In Jens Otten
ileansep.p through backtracking over the predicate
select/3 and iterative deepening all selections

are tried. To show unprovability you have to show
looping for all possible selection functions, which
is obviously less trivial than the “root-first proof
search” humbug from von Platos vegan products

store that offers “naturally growing trees”.

Mild Shock

2024-07-13 22:14:31 UTC

Permalink

Even Dyckhoffs calculus LJT has (L=>=>) not
invertible and is still bugged by a selection
function dependency. Because of this complication
minimal logic calculi have traditionally been shown

decidable not by means of proof theory but
rather by means of model theory. You can look up
modal companions and then draw upon some finite

Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs
Fischer & Ladner - 1979
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000079900461
The modal systems K, T, S4, S5 (cf. Ladner [16]) are
recognizable subsystems of propositional dynamic logic.
K allows only the modality A,
T allows only the modality A u λ,
S4 allows ordy the modality A*,
S5 allows only the modality (A u A-)*.
Rather read the original, von Plato

But the book by Troelstra (1939-2019) and
Schwichtenberg (1949 -), doesn’t contain a minimal
logic is decidable theorem, based on some “loop
checking”, as indicated by von Plato on page 78.
The problem situation is similar as in Prolog SLD
resolution, where S stands for selection function.
Since the (L=>) inference rule is not invertible, it
involves a selection function σ,
Γ, A => B |- A Γ, B |- C A selection function σ did pick
------------------------------- (L=>) A => B from the left hand side
Γ, A => B |- C
One selection function might loop, another
selection function might not loop. In Jens Otten
ileansep.p through backtracking over the predicate
select/3 and iterative deepening all selections
are tried. To show unprovability you have to show
looping for all possible selection functions, which
is obviously less trivial than the “root-first proof
search” humbug from von Platos vegan products
store that offers “naturally growing trees”.

Mild Shock

2024-07-22 10:58:06 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Thats quite a deseases, even Wadler makes the
error, when he automatically associates the curry
howard isomorphism, to evaluation strategies.

Often proof normalization cannot go as far
as evaluation strategies can go. A simple example
is the Y combinator. You can try yourself,

I am adding the “I” combinator which we have
already shown to be derivable, and then a
new “Y” combinator:

/* I axiom */
typeof(i, (A -> B)) :-
unify_with_occurs_check(A,B).
/* Y axiom */
typeof(y, ((A -> B) -> C)) :-
unify_with_occurs_check(A,B),
unify_with_occurs_check(A,C).

Lets see what happens, can we prove anything?

?- between(1,6,N), search(typeof(X, a), N, 0).
N = 3,
X = y*i .

Yes it collapses trivally, even doesn’t need a
complicated Curry Paradox.

Bye

Mild Shock

2024-07-31 20:16:38 UTC

Permalink

I am really surprised that we have reached
a point in history, where philosophy and
artificial intelligence go separate paths,
where philosophy stigmatizes means of

abstractions on the computer and where even
education in computer science itself is at
loss with the rapid advancement of type theory
from computation to deduction. This wasn’t always

It is interesting to note that almost all the major subfields of AI

mirror subfields of philosophy: The AI analogue of philosophy of
language is computational

linguistics; what philosophers call “practical
reasoning” is called “planning and acting” in
AI; ontology (indeed, much of metaphysics
and epistemology) corresponds to knowledge
representation in AI; and automated reasoning
is one of the AI analogues of logic.
– C.2.1.1 Intentions, practitions, and the ought-to-do.
Should AI workers study philosophy? Yes,
unless they are content to reinvent the wheel
every few days. When AI reinvents a wheel, it is
typically square, or at best hexagonal, and
can only make a few hundred revolutions before
it stops. Philosopher’s wheels, on the other hand,
are perfect circles, require in principle no
lubrication, and can go in at least two directions
at once. Clearly a meeting of minds is in order.
– C.4 Summary

See also:

(*)

Prolegomena to a Study of Hector-Neri Castañeda’s
Influence on Artificial Intelligence: A Survey
and Personal Reflections William Rappaport - January 1998
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266277981

Mild Shock

2024-08-03 20:51:54 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive

The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
movement that began in the 1950s as an
interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new
field known as cognitive science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution

The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas

most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist

is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current

short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:

A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705

making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow

overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?

So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.

You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have

we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.

The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.

I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute
whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.

Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
ways, the simulations are often based on air.

A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.

For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see

https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html

-- Jeff Barnett

Mild Shock

2024-08-03 21:48:38 UTC

Permalink

My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.

The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,

would explain:
- why my father or mother never tried to
educated me towards cognitive science.
It could be that they are totally blank
in this respect?

- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
tried to educate me towards cognitive
science. Dito It could be that they are totally
blank in this respect?

- it could be that there are rare cases where
some philosophers had already a glimps of
cognitive science. But when I open for
example this booklet:

System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL

One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
for several millennia. What happened in the
1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive

The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
movement that began in the 1950s as an
interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new
field known as cognitive science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.

You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have

we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute
whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
ways, the simulations are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett

Mild Shock

2024-08-03 22:00:54 UTC

Permalink

BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good
and funny to browse, he reports relatively
unfiltered what we would nowadays call

forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little
pot purry, except for his sections where he
explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan

figures, which are more pure logic of the form.
And peng you get a guy talking pages and
pages about pure and form:

"Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm

But the above is a from species of philosophy
that is endangered now. Its predator are
abstractions on the computer like lambda

calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The
revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only
dead people would be interested in, like

may father, grandfather etc...

Post by Mild Shock
My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,
- why my father or mother never tried to
educated me towards cognitive science.
It could be that they are totally blank
in this respect?
- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
tried to educate me towards cognitive
science. Dito It could be that they are totally
blank in this respect?
- it could be that there are rare cases where
some philosophers had already a glimps of
cognitive science. But when I open for
System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
for several millennia. What happened in the
1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
> The cognitive revolution was an intellectual
> movement that began in the 1950s as an
> interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
> processes, from which emerged a new
> field known as cognitive science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
   caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
   some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.
> You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have
we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge
and reasoning, we have also lost contact with the
studies of methods and motivation. Psychology
was the basic home room of Alan Newell and many
other AI all stars. What is now called AI, I think
incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts
of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we
learn nothing about the capturing of knowledge, what
it is, or how it is used. Both logic and heuristic reasoning
are needed and we certainly believe that intelligence is
not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process
was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results
when you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about
MYCIN (an early AI medical consultant for diagnosing
blood-borne infectious diseases) where I learned about
one use of the term "staff disease", or just "staff" for short.
In patient care areas there always seems to be an in-
house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute
whatever is making them sick in the first place. In the
second place there is rapid mutations driven by all sorts
of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute
by minute. In a days time, the samples you took are
no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is
that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to
make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities
here? Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation
to simulate probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference.
Since actual probabilities may not exist in any meaningful
ways, the simulations are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to
explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also
able to repair our inner models when we are in error if
we can understand why. The abilities to explain and
repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
    -- Jeff Barnett

Mild Shock

2024-08-03 22:13:07 UTC

Permalink

And "cognitive science" has recently pursued
the relation of intentional mental activities
to neural processes in the brain.

I call this bullshit. He confuses cognitive
science with some sort of Neuroscience and/or
connectionist approaches.

Some broader working definition

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary
science that deals with the processing of
information in the context of perception,
thinking and decision-making processes,
both in humans and in animals or machines.

You see how much philosophy is behind.
David Woodruff Smith published the
paper in 2003? I don't think there are any

excuses for his nonsense definition.
Especially if one writes about pure form.
This is so idiotic.

BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good
and funny to browse, he reports relatively
unfiltered what we would nowadays call
forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little
pot purry, except for his sections where he
explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan
figures, which are more pure logic of the form.
And peng you get a guy talking pages and
"Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm
But the above is a from species of philosophy
that is endangered now. Its predator are
abstractions on the computer like lambda
calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The
revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only
dead people would be interested in, like
may father, grandfather etc...

Post by Mild Shock
My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,
- why my father or mother never tried to
   educated me towards cognitive science.
   It could be that they are totally blank
   in this respect?
- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
   tried to educate me towards cognitive
   science. Dito It could be that they are totally
   blank in this respect?
- it could be that there are rare cases where
   some philosophers had already a glimps of
   cognitive science. But when I open for
System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
   One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
   for several millennia. What happened in the
   1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.

Mild Shock

2024-08-03 22:58:17 UTC

Permalink

Well we all know about this rule:

- Never ask a woman about her weight

- Never ask a woman about her age

There is a similar rule for philosophers:

- Never ask a philosopher what is cognitive science

- Never ask a philosopher what is formula-as-types

Explanation: They like to be the champions of
pure form like in this paper below, so they
don’t like other disciplines dealing with pure
form or even having pure form on the computer.

"Pure” logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith - Revue internationale de philosophie 2003/2
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm

Moebius

2024-08-03 23:45:50 UTC

Permalink

[...]
- Never ask a woman about her age.

Right.

On the other hand, I'm 45 - since more than 10 years-

Mild Shock

2024-08-08 15:11:29 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Lets say one milestone in cognitive science,
is the concept of "bounded rationality".
It seems LLMs have some traits that are also

found in humans. For example the anchoring effect
is a psychological phenomenon in which an
individual’s judgements or decisions

are influenced by a reference point or “anchor”
which can be completely irrelevant. Like for example
when discussing Curry Howard isomorphism with

a real world philosopher , one that might
not know Curry Howard isomorphism but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect

nevertheless be tempted to hallucinate some nonsense.
One highly cited paper in this respect is Tversky &
Kahneman 1974. R.I.P. Daniel Kahneman,

March 27, 2024. The paper is still cited today:

Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Biases: A Viewpoint
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-2-page-223.htm

Maybe using deeper and/or more careful reasoning,
possibly backed up by Prolog engine, could have
a positive effect? Its very difficult also for a

Prolog engine, since there is a trade-off
between producing no answer at all if the software
agent is too careful, and of producing a wealth

of nonsense otherwise.

Bye

Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
all relevant information from a problem statement as
logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
explicit deductive reasoning.
[2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
The future of Prolog is bright?

Mild Shock

2024-08-08 15:19:55 UTC

Permalink

But I wouldn’t give up so quickly, even
classical expert system theory of the 80’s
had it that an expert system needs somewhere

a knowledge acquisition component. But the
idea there was that the system would simulate
the experts dialog with the advice taker

Von Datenbanken zu Expertsystemen
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1051258432

and gather further information to complete
the advice. Still this could be inspiring,
don’t stop at not knowing Curry-Howard isomorphism,

go on learn it, never stop! Just like here:

Never Gonna Give You Up

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Lets say one milestone in cognitive science,
is the concept of "bounded rationality".
It seems LLMs have some traits that are also
found in humans. For example the anchoring effect
is a psychological phenomenon in which an
individual’s judgements or decisions
are influenced by a reference point or “anchor”
which can be completely irrelevant. Like for example
when discussing Curry Howard isomorphism with
a real world philosopher , one that might
not know Curry Howard isomorphism but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
nevertheless be tempted to hallucinate some nonsense.
One highly cited paper in this respect is Tversky &
Kahneman 1974. R.I.P. Daniel Kahneman,
Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Biases: A Viewpoint
https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-2-page-223.htm
Maybe using deeper and/or more careful reasoning,
possibly backed up by Prolog engine, could have
a positive effect? Its very difficult also for a
Prolog engine, since there is a trade-off
between producing no answer at all if the software
agent is too careful, and of producing a wealth
of nonsense otherwise.
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-08-28 18:46:28 UTC

Permalink

Now I wonder whether LLMs should be an
inch more informed by results from Neuro-
endocrinology research. I remember Marvin
Minsky publishing his ‘The Society of Mind’:

Introduction to ‘The Society of Mind’

But this made me think about a multi agent
systems. Now with LLMs what about a new
connectionist and deep learning approach.
Plus Prolog for the pre frontal cortex (PFC).

But who can write a blue print? Now there
is this amazing guy called Robert M. Sapolsky
who recently published Determined: A Science
of Life without Free Will, who

calls consciousness just a hicup. His turtles
all the way down model is a tour de force
through an unsettling conclusion: We may not
grasp the precise marriage of nature and nurture

that creates the physics and chemistry at the
base of human behavior, but that doesn’t mean it
doesn’t exist. But the pre frontal cortex (PFC)
seems to be still quite brittle and not extremly

performant and quite energy hungry.
So Prolog might excell?

Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will
https://www.amazon.de/dp/0525560998

Mild Shock

2024-09-01 20:38:49 UTC

Permalink

The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254

Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.

Mild Shock

2024-09-01 21:20:49 UTC

Permalink

Hold your breath, the bartender in your next
vacation destination will be most likely an AI
robot. Lets say in 5 years from now. Right?

Michael Sheen The Robot Bartender

Post by Mild Shock
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.

Jim Burns

2024-09-02 13:32:01 UTC

Permalink

Post by Mild Shock
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

I think I've seen this one already.

⎛
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ He died in West Virginia
⎜ With his hammer in his hand
⎜ They sing about him all across the land
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜
⎜
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ And it didn't change nothin'
⎜ But heaven knows he tried
⎜ He was buried with his hammer by his side
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ John Henry
⎜
⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜ And the company come to take it
⎜ But the work was hard and slow
⎜ Said well, there ain't no money in it
⎜ We'll just go
⎜ Alright, there's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜
⎜ And the union come and tried to make a stand
⎜ The union come and tried to make a stand
⎜ And West Virginia miners voted union to a man
⎜ You'd never know it now, but that was then
⎜ When the union come and tried to make a stand
⎜
⎜ But the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Well, the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Cut more coal in an hour
⎜ Than a shift could in a week
⎜ John Henry could've told them what that means
⎜ When the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Hey
⎜
⎜
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ He died in West Virginia
⎜ With his hammer in his hand
⎜ They sing about him all across the land
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜
⎜ -- Steve Earle
⎝
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Steve-Earle/john-henry-was-a-steel-drivin-man

Ross Finlayson

2024-09-02 16:30:35 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jim Burns

Post by Mild Shock
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

I think I've seen this one already.
http://youtu.be/F3sTO7VqxME
⎛
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ He died in West Virginia
⎜ With his hammer in his hand
⎜ They sing about him all across the land
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜
⎜
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ And it didn't change nothin'
⎜ But heaven knows he tried
⎜ He was buried with his hammer by his side
⎜ He beat the steam drill down
⎜ And then he died
⎜ John Henry
⎜
⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜ There's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜ And the company come to take it
⎜ But the work was hard and slow
⎜ Said well, there ain't no money in it
⎜ We'll just go
⎜ Alright, there's coal beneath the mountain down below
⎜
⎜ And the union come and tried to make a stand
⎜ The union come and tried to make a stand
⎜ And West Virginia miners voted union to a man
⎜ You'd never know it now, but that was then
⎜ When the union come and tried to make a stand
⎜
⎜ But the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Well, the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Cut more coal in an hour
⎜ Than a shift could in a week
⎜ John Henry could've told them what that means
⎜ When the company brought in all the big machines
⎜ Hey
⎜
⎜
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜ He died in West Virginia
⎜ With his hammer in his hand
⎜ They sing about him all across the land
⎜ John Henry was a steel drivin' man
⎜
⎜ -- Steve Earle
⎝
https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Steve-Earle/john-henry-was-a-steel-drivin-man

In some periods in history,
the price of oil is such,
that people pay
to have it hauled away.

So, it's not so much that AI is cheaper than people,
though it is a great source of advantange,
as that there's a great embarrassment of riches
of availability of computing resources,
what's set the price point so low.

Then, the idea is that people can afford their own agents,
on their own computing resources, not so much as that
it's cheap for the industry to offer that as a service,
to anybody, because the agent belongs to them,
and it's inscrutable and so on and worthless,
in terms of what value it takes.

So, "the cost", is plenty high, "unregulated AI".

Mild Shock

2024-09-02 17:02:47 UTC

Permalink

I didn't find yet a paper that proofs "cheapness"
related to humans, only a paper about "low carbon

Post by Mild Shock
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

And that costs go down is mentioned only

Post by Mild Shock
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.

"low carbon emission" can be an indicative of low
price. But not necessarely. It could be also an
indicative of "green" production of AI. And maybe

the problem is that humans are not that "green",
it could be easier to make a computing center "green",
than a city full of humans. Also the nature

article could be some fake news propaganda.

So still waiting for more information...

Post by Mild Shock
In some periods in history,
the price of oil is such,
that people pay
to have it hauled away.
So, it's not so much that AI is cheaper than people,
though it is a great source of advantange,
as that there's a great embarrassment of riches
of availability of computing resources,
what's set the price point so low.
Then, the idea is that people can afford their own agents,
on their own computing resources, not so much as that
it's cheap for the industry to offer that as a service,
to anybody, because the agent belongs to them,
and it's inscrutable and so on and worthless,
in terms of what value it takes.
So, "the cost", is plenty high, "unregulated AI".

Mild Shock

2024-09-03 10:03:03 UTC

Permalink

What a bullshit:

Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/

Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they

learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg

for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.

Mild Shock

2024-09-03 15:58:05 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

The blue are AfD, the green are:

German greens after losing badly
https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-suffer-major-loss-of-votes-in-eu-elections-nina-haase-reports/video-69316755

Time to start a yellow party, the first party
with an Artificial Intelligence Ethics agenda?

Bye

P.S.: Here I tried some pigwrestling with
ChatGPT demonstrating Mira Murati is just
a nice face. But ChatGPT is just like a child,

spamming me with large bullets list, from
its huge lexical memory, without any deep
understanding. But it also gave me an interesting

list of potential caliber AI critiques. Any new
Greta Thunberg of Artificial Intelligence
Ethics among them?

Mira Murati Education Background
https://chatgpt.com/c/fbc385d4-de8d-4f29-b925-30fac75072d4

Post by Mild Shock
Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/
Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they
learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.

Mild Shock

2024-09-25 20:10:12 UTC

Permalink

I told you so, not worth a dime:

I have something to share wit you. After much reflection,
I have made the difficut decision to leave OpenAI.
https://twitter.com/miramurati/status/1839025700009030027

Who is stepping in with the difficult task, Sam Altman himself?

The Intelligence Age
September 23, 2024
https://ia.samaltman.com/

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
German greens after losing badly
https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-suffer-major-loss-of-votes-in-eu-elections-nina-haase-reports/video-69316755
Time to start a yellow party, the first party
with an Artificial Intelligence Ethics agenda?
Bye
P.S.: Here I tried some pigwrestling with
ChatGPT demonstrating Mira Murati is just
a nice face. But ChatGPT is just like a child,
spamming me with large bullets list, from
its huge lexical memory, without any deep
understanding. But it also gave me an interesting
list of potential caliber AI critiques. Any new
Greta Thunberg of Artificial Intelligence
Ethics among them?
Mira Murati Education Background
https://chatgpt.com/c/fbc385d4-de8d-4f29-b925-30fac75072d4

Mild Shock

2024-09-05 17:52:05 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/

Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352

Bye

Mild Shock

2024-09-05 21:52:27 UTC

Permalink

Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere

for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the

next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused

non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the

Nazi regime. How ironic!

Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-09-09 11:20:32 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Not sure whether this cinematic master piece
contains a rendition when I was hunted recently
by a virus and had some hypomanic episodes.

But the chapter "Electromagnetic Waves" is fun:

Three Thousand Years of Longing

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere
for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the
next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused
non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the
Nazi regime. How ironic!
Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459

Mild Shock

2024-09-10 06:57:06 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

That a Djin can procreate with a Human,
looks like variation of this theme:

Die „Räubersynode" von Ephesos

But how is Artificial Intelligence born?

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
Not sure whether this cinematic master piece
contains a rendition when I was hunted recently
by a virus and had some hypomanic episodes.
Three Thousand Years of Longing
http://youtu.be/id8-z5vANvc
Bye

Mild Shock

2024-09-11 18:11:59 UTC

Permalink

Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats

https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat

Mild Shock

2024-09-13 11:00:23 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

MIS is acronym for management information systems.
In the past, people from MIS, offered consulting by means
balanced scorecard, which could be benefitial for companies:

Balanced Scorecard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_scorecard

Now after big data, artificial intelligence, etc.. we can
do text scraping and venture into Luhmanns Autopoiesis,
d.h. Selbsterhaltung durch Nabelschau:

Are we on the right track? an update to Lyytinen
et al.’s commentary on why the old world cannot publish
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1940324

LoL

Gruss, Jan

P.S.: Autopoiesis
Autopoietische Systeme erzeugen und ermöglichen sich
selbst. "Als autopoietisch wollen wir Systeme bezeichnen, die
die Elemente, aus denen sie bestehen, durch die Elementen,
aus denen sie bestehen, selbst produzieren und reproduzieren. (...)
Ein autopoietisches System ist ein selbstreferenziell-zirkulär
geschlossener Zusammenhang von Operationen."
https://luhmann.fandom.com/de/wiki/Autopoiesis

Post by Mild Shock
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
http://youtu.be/5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat

Mild Shock

2024-09-13 11:03:51 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

Given this theory from cognitive science, Trump
did a "home run" during his encounter with Kamala.
The internet was made for cats:

"The anchoring effect is a psychological phenomenon in
which an individual's judgments or decisions are influenced
by a reference point or "anchor" which can be completely irrelevant."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect

But not only Trump wants to get a foothold in my
brain. Apple is spamming me with Artificial Intelligence
everywhere suggestions:

"Den nächsten Schritt in deiner schulischen Laufbahn
zu absolvieren, ist aufregend und herausfordernd zugleich.
KI-gestützte Tools haben das Potenzial, dir die meisten deiner
Studien zu erleichtern und eine steile Lernkurve zu ermöglichen."
https://apps.apple.com/ch/story/id1749178332

Suggesting its the new normal to use AI in schools and
university. Not stigmatized, rather a unique selling proposition.

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
MIS is acronym for management information systems.
In the past, people from MIS, offered consulting by means
Balanced Scorecard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_scorecard
Now after big data, artificial intelligence, etc.. we can
do text scraping and venture into Luhmanns Autopoiesis,
Are we on the right track? an update to Lyytinen
et al.’s commentary on why the old world cannot publish
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1940324
LoL
Gruss, Jan
P.S.: Autopoiesis
Autopoietische Systeme erzeugen und ermöglichen sich
selbst. "Als autopoietisch wollen wir Systeme bezeichnen, die
die Elemente, aus denen sie bestehen, durch die Elementen,
aus denen sie bestehen, selbst produzieren und reproduzieren. (...)
Ein autopoietisches System ist ein selbstreferenziell-zirkulär
geschlossener Zusammenhang von Operationen."
https://luhmann.fandom.com/de/wiki/Autopoiesis

Post by Mild Shock
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
http://youtu.be/5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat

Mild Shock

2024-09-17 20:19:39 UTC

Permalink

How it started:

How Hezbollah used pagers and couriers to counter
July 9, 2024
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/pagers-drones-how-hezbollah-aims-counter-israels-high-tech-surveillance-2024-07-09/

How its going:

What we know about the Hezbollah pager explosions
Sept 17, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04m913m49o

Post by Mild Shock
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
http://youtu.be/5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat

Mild Shock

2024-10-11 07:13:24 UTC

Permalink

Shitty JavaScript "Ecosystem":

The Internet Archive Has Been Hacked - October 10, 2024
https://hackaday.com/2024/10/10/the-internet-archive-has-been-hacked/

Polyfill Supply Chain Attack: Details and Fixes - July 9, 2024
https://fossa.com/blog/polyfill-supply-chain-attack-details-fixes/

Post by Mild Shock
How Hezbollah used pagers and couriers to counter
July 9, 2024
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/pagers-drones-how-hezbollah-aims-counter-israels-high-tech-surveillance-2024-07-09/
What we know about the Hezbollah pager explosions
Sept 17, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04m913m49o

Post by Mild Shock
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
http://youtu.be/5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat

Mild Shock

2024-09-15 22:23:16 UTC

Permalink

You know USA has a problem,
when Oracle enters the race:

To source the 131,072 GPU Al "supercluster,"
Larry Ellison, appealed directly to Jensen Huang,
during a dinner joined by Elon Musk at Nobu.
"I would describe the dinner as me and Elon
begging Jensen for GPUs. Please take our money.
We need you to take more of our money. Please!”
https://twitter.com/benitoz/status/1834741314740756621

Meanwhile a contender in Video GenAI
FLUX.1 from Germany, Hurray! With Open Source:

OK. Now I'm Scared... AI Better Than Reality

Mild Shock

2024-09-18 13:44:18 UTC

Permalink

The biggest flop in logic programming
history, scryer prolog is dead. The poor
thing is a prolog system without garbage

collection, not very useful. So how will
Austria get out of all this?
With 50 PhDs and 10 Postdocs?

"To develop its foundations, BILAI employs a
Bilateral AI approach, effectively combining
sub-symbolic AI (neural networks and machine learning)
with symbolic AI (logic, knowledge representation,
and reasoning) in various ways."

https://www.bilateral-ai.net/jobs/.

LoL

Post by Mild Shock
You know USA has a problem,
To source the 131,072 GPU Al "supercluster,"
Larry Ellison, appealed directly to Jensen Huang,
during a dinner joined by Elon Musk at Nobu.
"I would describe the dinner as me and Elon
begging Jensen for GPUs. Please take our money.
We need you to take more of our money. Please!”
https://twitter.com/benitoz/status/1834741314740756621
Meanwhile a contender in Video GenAI
OK. Now I'm Scared... AI Better Than Reality
http://youtu.be/cvMAVWDD-DU

Mild Shock

2024-10-08 14:06:03 UTC

Permalink

will probably never get a Turing Award or something
for what I did 23 years ago. Why is its reading
count on research gate suddently going up?

Knowledge, Planning and Language,
November 2001

I guess because of this, the same topic takled by
Microsofts recent model GRIN. Shit. I really should
find some investor and pump up a start up!

"Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale more
effectively than dense models due to sparse
computation through expert routing, selectively
activating only a small subset of expert modules."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12136

But somehow I am happy with my dolce vita as
it is now... Or maybe I am decepting myself?

P.S.: From the GRIN paper, here you see how
expert domains modules relate with each other:

Figure 6 (b): MoE Routing distribution similarity
across MMLU 57 tasks for the control recipe.

Mild Shock

2024-10-08 14:06:57 UTC

Permalink

Maybe these guys were earlier:

Jacobs, R. A., Jordan, M. I., Nowlan, S. J., and Hinton,
G. E. Adaptive mixtures of local experts.
Neural Computation, 1991.

And more connectionist than my symbolic approach.

Disclaimer: Never read the paper yet.

Post by Mild Shock
will probably never get a Turing Award or something
for what I did 23 years ago. Why is its reading
count on research gate suddently going up?
Knowledge, Planning and Language,
November 2001
I guess because of this, the same topic takled by
Microsofts recent model GRIN. Shit. I really should
find some investor and pump up a start up!
"Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale more
effectively than dense models due to sparse
computation through expert routing, selectively
activating only a small subset of expert modules."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12136
But somehow I am happy with my dolce vita as
it is now... Or maybe I am decepting myself?
P.S.: From the GRIN paper, here you see how
Figure 6 (b): MoE Routing distribution similarity
across MMLU 57 tasks for the control recipe.

Mild Shock

2024-10-03 10:29:35 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
interaction is not very "involving".

Could this be improved. There are possibly two
traits missing:

Feelings:
- Emotional states
- Temporariness
- Reaction to external circumstances
- Changeability
- Subjective sensations

Soul:
- Spirituality
- Immortality
- Innermost being
- Essence of an individual
- Deep, enduring aspects of human existence

Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
"Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
"Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.

In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
which is probably at the upper end of credulous
reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could

also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
cooperation is always the better alternative,
e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.

I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
AI” could coexist. Many religions give Cosmopolitan
magazin style life advice, and not just theological

dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
also sometimes satirically referred to as Chadguru:

Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati

Mild Shock

2024-10-03 10:41:18 UTC

Permalink

Hi,

ChatGPT is currently showing new tricks to me
and would like to adapt its dialogue style:

"Got it! Emotionally connected communication can
indeed be concise and efficient, without losing depth.
I can focus more on direct responses that still acknowledge
emotional nuances, while avoiding unnecessary elaboration.

Would you like me to adapt this style right away?"

After I switched back to "elaboration", the thing gives
me information about "Spiritual AI":

"- Mindfulness and Meditation Apps: Apps like
Headspace and Calm use AI to guide meditation
and promote mindfulness, which are often
associated with spiritual growth.

- AI-driven Chatbots for Spiritual Guidance: For
example, in 2017, a chatbot named Jwitness was
designed to answer questions based on Jehovah's
Witness teachings.

- AI Prayer Companions: Some faith communities
are experimenting with AI that assists in
prayer or reflection

- Platforms that promote deeper philosophical
discussions, like Replika, which is designed to
engage in thoughtful and sometimes
existential conversations

- For instance, Woebot or Wysa help users navigate
emotions but also touch on existential themes
like purpose and fulfillment."

Bye

Post by Mild Shock
Hi,
ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
interaction is not very "involving".
Could this be improved. There are possibly two
- Emotional states
- Temporariness
- Reaction to external circumstances
- Changeability
- Subjective sensations
- Spirituality
- Immortality
- Innermost being
- Essence of an individual
- Deep, enduring aspects of human existence
Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
"Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
"Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.
In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
which is probably at the upper end of credulous
reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could
also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
cooperation is always the better alternative,
e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.
I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
AI” could coexist. Many religions give Cosmopolitan
magazin style life advice, and not just theological
dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati
http://youtu.be/PlZqxP5MXFs