[_tpdt]

“Lenat argues that we just don't have the data needed to reach common sense through these newer methods. Common sense isn't written down. It's not on the Internet. It's in our heads. And that’s why he continues to work on Cyc.”

“At one point, Lenat remembers, it suggested he could win the game by changing the rules. But each morning, Lenat would rejigger the system, pushing Eurisko away from the ridiculous and toward the practical. In other words, he would lend the machine a little common sense.”

Really enjoyed this 2016 article.

For safety-critical applications that use black-box ML models, I feel like a rules-engine paired with a knowledge graph needs to kinda sandwich the ML black box —- to “prompt engineer” the input and ensure the output aligns with common sense and safety standards.

Edit: clarity

[moomin]

When Margaret Hamilton developed the Apollo guidance systems, she ran three teams which all wrote completely independent guidance systems. She then wrote herself a program to arbitrate between them when they disagreed.

[sgt101]

I thought that the Apollo system was barely able to execute on the available hardware, so there was no redundancy.

I think that the space shuttle did feature this kind of system though.

[moomin]

I've got a nasty feeling you're right. I can't find any references at all really. My understanding was the shuttle was using very similar tech to Apollo but I can verify almost nothing.

[robertlagrant]

Really they should've have three programs deciding.