Re: ILP is still dreaming of higher order (Was: Prolog Education Group clueless about the AI Boom?)

You are probably aiming at the decomposition
of autoencoder or transformer into an encoder
and decoder. Making the split up automatically
from a more general ILP framework.
 > The H is the bottleneck on purpose:
 >
 > relation(X, Y) :- encoder(X, H), decoder(H, Y).
Ok you missed the point. Lets assume for the
moment the H on purpose is not something that
happens accidential through a more general
learning algorithm. But it is a design feature
of how we want to learn. Can we incorporate
analogical reasoning, the parallelogram?
Yeah, relatively simple, just add more input
and output layers. The new parameter K indicates
how the representation was chosen:
relation(X, Y) :-
    similar(X, A, K),
    encoder(A, H),
    decoder(H, B),
    similar(Y, B, K).
Its again an autoencoder respectively transformer,
with a bigger latent space. Prominent additional input
layers that work here are convolutional neural networks.
Things like max pooling or self-attention pooling:
relation(X, Y) :-
    encoder2(X, J),
    decoder2(J, Y).
encoder2(X, [K|H]) :-
    similar(X, A, K),
    encoder(A, H),
decoder2([K|H], Y) :-
    decoder(H, B),
    similar(Y, B, K).
You can learn the decoder2/2 as a whole in your
autoencoder and transformer learning framework,
provided it can deal with many layers, i.e.
if it has deep learning techniques.
Mild Shock schrieb:

The first deep learning breakthrough was
AlexNet by Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever
and Geoffrey Hinton:
  > In 2011, Geoffrey Hinton started reaching out
 > to colleagues about “What do I have to do to
 > convince you that neural networks are the future?”
 > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlexNet
 Meanwhile ILP is still dreaming of higher order logic:
  > We pull it out of thin air. And the job that does
 > is, indeed, that it breaks up relations into
 > sub-relations or sub-routines, if you prefer.
 You mean this here:
  > Background knowledge (Second Order)
 > -----------------------------------
 > (Chain) ∃.P,Q,R ∀.x,y,z: P(x,y)← Q(x,z),R(z,y)
 >
 > https://github.com/stassa/vanilla/tree/master/lib/poker
 Thats too general, it doesn’t adress
analogical reasoning.
 Mild Shock schrieb:

Concerning this boring nonsense:
>
https://book.simply-logical.space/src/text/2_part_ii/5.3.html#
>
Funny idea that anybody would be interested just now in
the year 2025 in things like teaching breadth first
search versus depth first search, or even be “mystified”
by such stuff. Its extremly trivial stuff:
>
Insert your favorite tree traversal pictures here.
>
Its even not artificial intelligence neither has anything
to do with mathematical logic, rather belongs to computer
science and discrete mathematics which you have in
1st year university
>
courses, making it moot to call it “simply logical”. It
reminds me of the idea of teaching how wax candles work
to dumb down students, when just light bulbs have been
invented. If this is the outcome
>
of the Prolog Education Group 2.0, then good night.
>