Philosophy Now Forum

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:40 pm Now that we have ChatGPT it is possible to automate the otherwise infeasibly large task
of populating a knowledge ontology with the set of general analytic knowledge.

Your ignorance of the subject matter does not count as any sort of rebuttal.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:59 pm It took Doug Lenat's team at least 700 labor years to manually populate his CYC project
with the tiny subset of analytical knowledge known as common sense. If we are very
generous and say that this is 1/10 of 1% of all knowledge then it would take twice as
long as the existence of Homo Sapians for one person to manually populate the knowledge
ontology that you refer to.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:02 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:40 pm Now that we have ChatGPT it is possible to automate the otherwise infeasibly large task
of populating a knowledge ontology with the set of general analytic knowledge.

Your ignorance of the subject matter does not count as any sort of rebuttal.

So fucking tired of bullshitters!!!

gpt.png

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:11 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:59 pm It took Doug Lenat's team at least 700 labor years to manually populate his CYC project
with the tiny subset of analytical knowledge known as common sense. If we are very
generous and say that this is 1/10 of 1% of all knowledge then it would take twice as
long as the existence of Homo Sapians for one person to manually populate the knowledge
ontology that you refer to.

So you are saying it's infeasible to go about the way you are going about it...By manually entering the data into the computers.

We know. That's why we are using machine learning.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:34 pm I already said that ChatGPT merely estimates that it is very likely that baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building. I also stated that Steve Wolfram was able to force ChatGPT to use deductive inference. Ignoring what I say proves insincerity on your part.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:35 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:11 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:59 pm It took Doug Lenat's team at least 700 labor years to manually populate his CYC project
with the tiny subset of analytical knowledge known as common sense. If we are very
generous and say that this is 1/10 of 1% of all knowledge then it would take twice as
long as the existence of Homo Sapians for one person to manually populate the knowledge
ontology that you refer to.

So you are saying it's infeasible to go about the way you are going about it...By manually entering the data into the computers.

We know. That's why we are using machine learning.

Yes that is correct.

Machine learning changes the way you think about a problem. Software engineers are trained to think logically and mathematically. We use assertions to prove properties of our programs are correct. With machine learning the focus shifts from a mathematical science to a natural science. We are making observations about an uncertain world, running experiments, using statistics not logic to analyze the result of the experiment

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:47 pm

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 7:34 pm I already said that ChatGPT merely estimates that it is very likely that baby kittens are not any type of ten story office building. I also stated that Steve Wolfram was able to force ChatGPT to use deductive inference. Ignoring what I say proves insincerity on your part.

So tired of bullshitters.

What do theorems and proofs in formal systems have to do with ChatGPT?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 8:05 pm Wolfram was able to force ChatGPT to use deductive inference.
Wolfram was able to force ChatGPT to use deductive inference.
Wolfram was able to force ChatGPT to use deductive inference.
Wolfram was able to force ChatGPT to use deductive inference.