How many billion parameters do PLN and TLCG have? Applications of category theory by Coecke, Sadrzadeh, Clark and others in the '00s are probably also formally correct.
As were applications of the maths of quantum mechanics. Formally. Does Dominic Widdows still have that conference? Indeterminacy formalized in different ways. But saying stuff is fuzzy, top down, is not the same as resolving that fuzziness, bottom up. Natural language grammars drifted to probabilistic frameworks in the '90s. Never worked worth a damn. That's why Bengio moved to NLM's in the first place (2003?) Networks, better because... more parameters? Now, only 20 years later... GPT-3 suggests learning parameters even in the billions seems to improve things even more. Insight! It seems like there's no limit to how many parameters are useful. Only problem is processing time to list them all beforehand.... It is obvious that you need to list them all beforehand... Right? You can imagine how OpenAI, or some other team, may finally stumble on the answer. They'll be pinched for budget, and finally decide it is stupid to spend $12M calculating 175 billion parameters in advance. When most of them will never be used. At some point some bright spark will suggest they calculate relevant parameters at run time. When they do that they may find they stop worrying about how many parameters they have. Because they will just be focused on finding the parameters they need, when they need them. The actual parameters will be found by some form of existing known meaningful relationship: permutation, transform, causal invariance... Easy stuff. Done now. Just the insight will be to do it at run time so they don't need to worry about how many there are (they may even be surprised to find they need to be able to contradict.) >From that point symbol binding will be solved, and they'll be free to build any kind of logic they want on top. -R On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:38 PM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > Contradictions are an interesting and important topic... > > PLN logic is paraconsistent, which Curry-Howard-corresponds to a sort > of gradual typing > > Intuitionistic logic maps into Type Logical Categorial Grammar (TLCG) > and such; paraconsistent logic would map into a variant of TLCG in > which there could be statements with multiple contradictory > parses/interpretations > > In short formal grammar is not antithetical to contradictions at the > level of syntax, semantics or pragmatics > > It is true that GPT3 can capture contradictory and ambiguous aspects > of language. However, capturing these without properly drawing > connections btw abstract patterns and concrete instances, doesn't get > you very far and isn't particularly a great direction IMO > > ben ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T21c073d3fe3faef0-M6fd5ed33f971d3ffc5e24cf9 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
