←back to thread

Learn Prolog Now

(lpn.swi-prolog.org)
207 points rramadass | 2 comments | 12 Nov 25 14:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.442s | source
Show context
disambiguation ◴[12 Nov 25 17:18 UTC] No.45902807[source]▶
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. LLMs are good at writing prolog that solves reasoning problems.

Common replies:

1. The bitter lesson.

2. There are better solvers, ex. Z3.

3. Someone smart must have already tried and ruled it out.

Successful experiments:

1. https://quantumprolog.sgml.net/llm-demo/part1.html

replies(14): >>45903080 #>>45903178 #>>45903192 #>>45903204 #>>45903228 #>>45903263 #>>45903361 #>>45903376 #>>45903458 #>>45903841 #>>45904155 #>>45904166 #>>45904490 #>>45906435 #
1. bobbylarrybobby ◴[12 Nov 25 18:26 UTC] No.45903841[source]▶
IIRC IBM’s Watson (the one that played Jeopardy) used primitive NLP (imagine!) to form a tree of factual relations and then passed this tree to construct Prolog queries that would produce an answer to a question. One could imagine that by swapping out the NLP part with an LLM, the model would have 1. a more thorough factual basis against which to write Prolog queries and 2. a better understanding of the queries it should write to get at answers (for instance, it may exploit more tenuous relations between facts than primitive NLP).
replies(1): >>45904240 #
2. baq ◴[12 Nov 25 18:50 UTC] No.45904240[source]▶
Please tell me that's approximately what Palantir Ontology is, because if it isn't, I've no idea what it could be.