Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learn Prolog Now (2006)

lpn.swi-prolog.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 251 posts

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#121

Post by chvid »

disambiguation wrote: post #40

I am once again shilling the idea that someone should find a way to glue Prolog and LLMs together for better reasoning agents. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43948657 Thesis: 1. LLMs are bad at counting the number of r's in strawberry. 2. LLMs are good at writing code that counts letters in a string. 3. LLMs are bad at solving reasoning problems. 4. Prolog is good at solving reasoning problems. 5. ??? 6. LLM…

If you are looking for AGI. And you understand what is going on inside of it - then it is obviously not AGI.

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#122

Post by jodrellblank »

nuc1e0n wrote: post #62
jodrellblank wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "4. Prolog is good at solving reasoning problems." Plain Prolog's way of solving reasoning problems is effectively: for person in [martha, brian, sarah, tyrone]: if timmy.parent == person: print "solved!" You hard code some options, write a logical condition with placeholders, and Prolog brute-forces every option in every placeholder. It doesn't do reasoning . Arguably it lets a human express reasoning problems bet…

What makes you think your brain isn't also brute forcing potential solutions subconciously and only surfacing the useful results?

Because I can solve problems that would take the age of the universe to brute force, without waiting the age of the universe. So can you: start counting at 1, increment the counter up to 10^8000, then print the counter value.

Prolog: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ...

You and me instantly: 10^8000

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#123

Post by riku_iki »

szundi wrote: post #86
riku_iki wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in your example (which is obviously not correct representation of prolog), that code will work X orders magnitude faster and with 100% reliability compared to much more inferior LLM reasoning capabilities.

This is not the point though

> This is not the point though

could you expand what is the point? That authors opinion without much justification is that this is not reasoning?

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#125

Post by johnisgood »

jabbywocker wrote: post #103
johnisgood wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very easy to solve, just like it is easy to solve many other ones once you know the tricks. I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Mental-Math-Mathemagicians-Ca...

Completely missing the point on purpose?

Elaborate.

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#126

Post by baudaux »

jfmc wrote: post #113
baudaux wrote: post #108

Is there a WebAssembly WASI version of swi prolog ?

Not sure... Other Prologs compiled to WASM with very good performance is https://ciao-lang.org/playground/ The same toplevel runs also from 'node' as well.

Thanks. I will have a look. I would like to integrate one Prolog in exaequOS.

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#128

Post by hunterpayne »

jodrellblank wrote: post #54
disambiguation wrote: post #40

I am once again shilling the idea that someone should find a way to glue Prolog and LLMs together for better reasoning agents. https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43948657 Thesis: 1. LLMs are bad at counting the number of r's in strawberry. 2. LLMs are good at writing code that counts letters in a string. 3. LLMs are bad at solving reasoning problems. 4. Prolog is good at solving reasoning problems. 5. ??? 6. LLM…

> "4. Prolog is good at solving reasoning problems." Plain Prolog's way of solving reasoning problems is effectively: for person in [martha, brian, sarah, tyrone]: if timmy.parent == person: print "solved!" You hard code some options, write a logical condition with placeholders, and Prolog brute-forces every option in every placeholder. It doesn't do reasoning . Arguably it lets a human express reasoning problems bet…

Its a Horn clause resolver...that's exactly the kind of reasoning that LLMs are bad at. I have no idea how to graft Prolog to an LLM but if you can graft any programming language to it, you can graft Prolog more easily.

Also, that you push Python and JavaScript makes me think you don't know many languages. Those are terrible languages to try to graft to anything. Just because you only know those 2 languages doesn't make them good choices for something like this. Learn a real language Physicist.

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#129

Post by Jtsummers »

marcelr wrote: post #127
timonoko wrote: post #124

Farts:

what the fuck does this mean? are you saying you can’t comprehend prolog programs?

It means that timonoko doesn't like to think and would rather ask grok to think for them and post weird comments about it here on HN. They've been doing this for a while.

Re: Learn Prolog Now (2006)

#130

Post by froggit »

mkirsten wrote: post #65
nuc1e0n wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think your brain isn't also brute forcing potential solutions subconciously and only surfacing the useful results?

Can you try calculating 101 * 70 in your head?

I can absolutely try this. Doesn't mean i'll solve it. If i solve it there's no guarantee i'll be correct. Math gets way harder when i don't have a legitimate need to do it. This falls in the "no legit need" so my mind went right to "100 * 70, good enough."
Post reply on HN