Science is not prepared for the AI Revolution (Was: Prolog totally missed the AI Boom)

Hi,
How it started, total humbug:
Quantentheorie und "Ich" - Gary B. Schmid (2017)
https://cropfm.at/archive/show/quantenich
How its going, a little better:
A Science without Free Will - Robert M. Sapolsky (2023)
https://www.amazon.de/dp/0525560971
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:

 Inductive logic programming at 30
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.10556
 The paper contains not a single reference to autoencoders!
Still they show this example:
 Fig. 1 ILP systems struggle with structured examples that
exhibit observational noise. All three examples clearly
spell the word "ILP", with some alterations: 3 noisy pixels,
shifted and elongated letters. If we would be to learn a
program that simply draws "ILP" in the middle of the picture,
without noisy pixels and elongated letters, that would
be a correct program.
 I guess ILP is 30 years behind the AI boom. An early autoencoder
turned into transformer was already reported here (*):
 SERIAL ORDER, Michael I. Jordan - May 1986
https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gary/PAPER-SUGGESTIONS/Jordan-TR-8604-OCRed.pdf
 Well ILP might have its merits, maybe we should not ask
for a marriage of LLM and Prolog, but Autoencoders and ILP.
But its tricky, I am still trying to decode the da Vinci code of
 things like stacked tensors, are they related to k-literal clauses?
The paper I referenced is found in this excellent video:
 The Making of ChatGPT (35 Year History)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFS90-FX6pg