We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
More Context
You have to have data to apply your logic too.
If it is raining, the sidewalk is wet. Does that mean if the sidewalk is wet, that it is raining?
There are domains of human knowledge that we will never have data on. There’s no logical way for me to 100% determine what was in Abraham Lincoln’s pockets on the day he was shot.
When you read real academic texts, you’ll notice that there is always the “this suggests that,” “we can speculate that,” etc etc. The real world is not straight math and binary logic. The closest fields to that might be physics and chemistry to a lesser extent, but even then - theoretical physics must be backed by experimentation and data.
Thanks I've never heard of data. And I've never read an academic text either. Condescending pos
So, while I'm ironing out your logic for you, "what else would you rely on, if not logic, to prove or disprove and ascertain knowledge about gaps?"
You asked a question, I gave an answer. I’m not sure where you get “condescending” there. I was assuming you had read an academic text, so I was hoping that you might have seen those patterns before.
You would look at the data for gaps, as my answer explained. You could use logic to predict some gaps, but not all gaps would be predictable. Mendeleev was able to use logic and patterns in the periodic table to predict the existence of germanium and other elements, which data confirmed, but you could not logically derive the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons without the later experimentations of say, JJ Thompson and Rutherford.
You can’t just feed the sum of human knowledge into a computer and expect it to know everything. You can’t predict “unknown unknowns” with logic.