The inherent 1st order thinking in that way of thinking... It highlights just how little we understand what we understand, and how utterly ignorant we are of what we don't.
I'm already seeing new "engineers" who cannot work things out without AI holding their hand
Yes, but LLMs are doing other things than just what Prolog does, and that's my point. People don't get excited about Prolog helping them write software, even though it has some capability to do so. LLMs contain other potentially useful algorithms (of not just logic, but epistemology in general, it understands how to create hypotheses and run experiments to confirm or refute them).
Also, of course, any computer program can be considered a logical calculation when interpreted in lambda calculus. And LLMs are computer programs, so you can consider them a formalization of all the above in the formal logic (although not a very good formalization, for various reasons).
I guess the point I'm trying to make is though the outputs are the same, the LMs not "doing" formal logic, its not in it, it's doing something else that only fools us because many many others have done formal logic in the training set
You can ask it to provide a prolog or datalog program
The inherent 1st order thinking in that way of thinking... It highlights just how little we understand what we understand, and how utterly ignorant we are of what we don't.
I'm already seeing new "engineers" who cannot work things out without AI holding their hand
Like those people who can't drive stick shift. What do they even do if they need to operate a real car?
1 reply →
Isn't it remarkable that this works? I wouldn't have thought so either, and yet here we are.
Not really, I think it says more about how little intelligence is in the behaviors we value
Yes, but LLMs are doing other things than just what Prolog does, and that's my point. People don't get excited about Prolog helping them write software, even though it has some capability to do so. LLMs contain other potentially useful algorithms (of not just logic, but epistemology in general, it understands how to create hypotheses and run experiments to confirm or refute them).
Also, of course, any computer program can be considered a logical calculation when interpreted in lambda calculus. And LLMs are computer programs, so you can consider them a formalization of all the above in the formal logic (although not a very good formalization, for various reasons).
I guess the point I'm trying to make is though the outputs are the same, the LMs not "doing" formal logic, its not in it, it's doing something else that only fools us because many many others have done formal logic in the training set