@cwebberChristine Lemmer-Webber a brave post

A question I was left with is, if you swapped out the LLM but kept the same datalog, would it behave close enough to the same to be considered the same entity?

Also: The LLM is doing 2 jobs, one is the usual plausible sentence generation, and the other is encoding rules and facts into the context window for the next iteration. Since we know other people can easily be fooled by an LLM doing the former, would a system with the same architecture, but that did not expose us to the generated material, but used it in some other way, still be useful/valuable/interesting?

arXiv logo

Getting from Generative AI to Trustworthy AI: What LLMs might learn from Cyc

Generative AI, the most popular current approach to AI, consists of large language models (LLMs) that are trained to produce outputs that are plausible, but not necessarily correct. Although their abilities are often uncanny, they are lacking in aspects of reasoning, leading LLMs to be less than completely trustworthy. Furthermore, their results tend to be both unpredictable and uninterpretable. We lay out 16 desiderata for future AI, and discuss an alternative approach to AI which could theoretically address many of the limitations associated with current approaches: AI educated with curated pieces of explicit knowledge and rules of thumb, enabling an inference engine to automatically deduce the logical entailments of all that knowledge. Even long arguments produced this way can be both trustworthy and interpretable, since the full step-by-step line of reasoning is always available, and for each step the provenance of the knowledge used can be documented and audited. There is however a catch: if the logical language is expressive enough to fully represent the meaning of anything we can say in English, then the inference engine runs much too slowly. That's why symbolic AI systems typically settle for some fast but much less expressive logic, such as knowledge graphs. We describe how one AI system, Cyc, has developed ways to overcome that tradeoff and is able to reason in higher order logic in real time. We suggest that any trustworthy general AI will need to hybridize the approaches, the LLM approach and more formal approach, and lay out a path to realizing that dream.

arxiv.org · arXiv.org

0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://sunbeam.city/users/joeyh/statuses/116083100867235370 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)

re: negative

@nina_kali_nina @cstanhopeYour friendly 'net denizen There is no doubt: it is a non-rigorous blogpost. There is more rigorous work happening, I linked to some of it, and @joeyhsee shy jo more here: sunbeam.city/@joeyh/1160831008

Maybe it is different for you, but the disturbing parts about this for me, and I have highlighted those for myself, aren't really related to rigor. I don't think most blogposts I write are particularly rigorous, but people aren't usually bothered about them, because there are other places to find rigor.

It's the other parts, I suspect, that are more toxic and which make the entire thing feel somewhat dangerous. And anyway, at the very least, it seems you agree on the concerns I stated wrestling with.

It may be worth a separate post explaining why I am troubled by *all* of this stuff, which I frontloaded and backloaded a sense of, but which deserves dedicated writing of its own if done right.

0