That’s a lot of words just to say “but modern AIs have access to more data”. Why overcomplicate prose? To sound smarter?
Still, OP’s argument still holds even if AIs today have much more data to rely upon.
Still, OP’s argument still holds even if AIs today have much more data to rely upon.
The internet is at your disposal go write a bunch of rules that make use of that data to do common sense reasoning, I dare you.
I don't know why you say this, I didn't say anything about common sense.
However, you mention CYC. That's a system that is perfectly capable of common sense reasoning and very much like an LLM in many ways. And that should be no surprise: LLMs are giant Expert Systems trained on a human knowledge-base, i.e. the web. OpenAI basically managed to achieve what Doug Lenat was trying to achieve except they did it with machine learning over massive data and compute instead of painstaking manual coding, but it's the same kind of system in the end.
Neural fuzzy systems can represent complex superpositions succinctly, knowledge graphs are collapsed and crisp.
It's like saying the tree unfolding of a graph is the same as that graph. Sure in the limit at infinite space requirements.
You can also consider Watson, different to Cyc in that its knowledge base was built with a lot of machine learning, including some neural nets. It wasn't an LLM but the original version (before corporate went at it and destroyed it) was perfectly capable of interacting in an open-ended manner, notably winning at Jeopardy years before BERT was a glimmer in Jacob Devlin's eye.
I note again that you were the one who brought common sense reasoning in the conversation but there's a large literature on rule-based systems that do that based e.g. on non-monotonic logics. You should familiarise yourself with that literature before engaging in dares with strangers on the internets.