Cyc

I wasn't trying to argue with you, I merely laid out what is commonly thought about the subject matter. Sorry if that sounds patronizing (it's really not meant to). Anyway, if you want to publish a paper defending a dualist position nowadays in any reputable journal, you'll have to address points 1&2 in one way or another, whether you believe you have to or not. It's not as if that problem hadn't been discussed during the past 60 years or so. There are whole journals dedicated to it.

> if the mind can be shown to perform physically uncomputable tasks

That's true. Many people have tried that and many people believe they can show it. Roger Penrose, for example. These arguments are usually based on complexity theory or the Halting Problem and involve certain views about what mathematicians can and cannot do. As I've said, I've personally not been convinced by any of those arguments.

Your mileage may differ. Fair enough. Just make sure that you do not "know the answer" already when starting to think about the problem, because that's what many people seem to do when they think about these kind of problems and it's a pity.

> calling a position names, such as 'mystical', does nothing to determine the veracity of the position. At best it is counter productive by distracting from the logic of the argument.

That wasn't my intention, I use "mystical" in this context in the sense of "does not provide any better understanding or scientifically acceptable explanation." Many of the (modern) arguments in this area are inferences to the best explanation.

By the way, correctly formulated computationalism does not presume physicalism. It is fully compatible with dualism.

I'm also a Cycorp employee, so I can say a little bit at least about (1) and (2).

1) We often use HOL. CycL isn't restricted to first order logic and we often reason by quantifying over predicates.

2) I don't know where you could read an explanation of it, other than the general problem that NLU is hard. It is something people at the company are interested in, though, and some of us think Cyc can play a big role in NLU.

1) What do you think about hybrid approach: hypergraphs + large-scale NLP models (transformers)?

2) How far we're from real self-evolving cognitive architectures with self-awareness features? Is it a question of years, months, or it's already solved problem?

3) Does it make sense to use embeddings like https://github.com/facebookresearch/PyTorch-BigGraph to achieve better results?

4) Why Cycorp decided to limit communication and collaboration with scientific community / AI-enthusiasts at some point?

5) Did you try to solve GLUE / SUPERGLUE / SQUAD challenges with your system?

6) Is Douglas Lenat still contribute actively to the project?

Thanks

Doug Lenat is very much still active in the project. He doesn't do as much work building the ontology, but he plays a role in how various projects develop and provides a lot of feedback.

These answers are very personal to me. I joined Cycorp because Doug Lenat sold me on it being a more viable path toward something like AGI than I had suspected when I read about it. I left for a number of reasons (e.g. just to pursue other projects) but a big one was slowly coming to doubt that.

I could be sold on the idea that Cyc or something Cyc-like could be a piece of the puzzle for AGI.

I say "Cyc-like" because my personal opinion is that the actual Cyc system is struggling under 30-odd years of rapidly accruing technical debt and while it can do some impressive things, it doesn't represent the full potential of something that could be built using the lessons learned along the way.

But the longer I worked there the more I felt like the plan was basically:

1. Manually add more and more common-sense knowledge and extend the inference engine

2. ???

3. AGI!

When it comes to AI, the questions for me are basically always: what does the process by which it learns look like? Is it as powerful as human learning, and in what senses? How does it scale?

The target is something that can bootstrap: it can seek out new knowledge, creatively form its own theories and test them, and grow its own understanding of the world without its knowledge growth being entirely gated by human supervision and guidance.

The current popular approach to AI is statistical machine learning, which has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years. But when you look at it, it's still basically just more and more effective forms of supervised learning on very strictly defined tasks with pretty concrete metrics for success. Sure, we got computers to the point where they can play out billions of games of Chess or Go in a short period of time, and gradient descent algorithms to the point where they can converge to mastery of the tasks they're assigned much faster - in stopwatch time - than humans. But it's still gated almost entirely by human supervision - we have to define a pretty concrete task and set up a system to train the neural nets via billions of brute force examples.

The out-of-fashion symbolic approach behind Cyc takes a different strategy. It learns in two ways: ontologists manually enter knowledge in the form of symbolic assertions (or set up domain-specific processes to scrape things in), and then it expands on that knowledge by inferring whatever else it can given what it already knows. It's gated by the human hand in the manual knowledge acquisition step, and in the boundaries of what is strictly implied by its inference system.

In my opinion, both of those lack something necessary for AGI. It's very difficult to specify what exactly that is, but I can give some symptoms.

A real AGI is agentive in an important sense - it actively seeks out things of interest to it. And it creatively produces new conceptual schemes to test out against its experience. When a human learns to play chess, they don't reason out every possible consequence of the rules in exactly the terms they were initially described in (which is basically all Cyc can do) or sit there and memorize higher-order statistical patterns in play through billions of games of trial and error (which is basically what ML approaches do). They learn the rules, reason about them a bit while playing games to predict a few moves ahead, play enough to get a sense of some of those higher order statistical patterns and then they do a curious thing: they start inventing new concepts that aren't in the rules. They notice the board has a "center" that its important to control, they start thinking in terms of "tempo" and "openness" so-on. The end result is in some ways very similar to the result of higher-order statistical pattern recognition, but in the ML case those patterns were hammered out one tiny change at a time until they matched reality, whereas in the human there's a moment where they did something very creative and had an idea and went through a kind of phase transition where they started thinking about the game in different terms.

I don't know how to get to AI that does that. ML doesn't - it's close in some ways but doesn't really do those inductive leaps. Cyc doesn't either. I don't think it can in any way that isn't roughly equivalent to manually building a system that can inside of Cyc. Interestingly, some of Doug Lenat's early work was maybe more relevant to that problem than Cyc is.

Anyway that's my two cents. As for the second question, I have no idea. I didn't come up with anything while I worked there.