Architectural Trade-offs Are Protocol-Specific. The "right" registry architecture depends heavily on deployment context. Enterprise environments with existing Azure AD infrastructure benefit from Entra Agent ID’s seamless integration and zero-maintenance approach. Open research communities and decentralized applications require the cryptographic guarantees and federated governance of NANDA Index. Protocol-specific ecosystems like MCP benefit from purpose-built registries that leverage existing authentication systems (GitHub OAuth) while maintaining simplicity.

Decentralization Enables Long-term Sustainability. While centralized approaches offer operational simplicity, they create single points of failure and vendor lock-in risks that become increasingly problematic as agent ecosystems mature. NANDA Index’s federated design demonstrate how decentralized architectures can achieve both scalability and community governance. The dual-path resolution pattern in NANDA particularly addresses privacy concerns that will become critical as agent interactions proliferate. Report issue for preceding element 3.

This paper surveys three prominent registry approaches each defined by a unique metadata model: MCP’s mcp. json, A2A’s Agent Card, and NANDA’s AgentFacts.

APIBench

LLaMA-based model that surpasses the performanceof GPT-4 on writing API calls.

Hierarchical Structure

Evaluation Protocol

Self-Reflection Mechanism in LLMs. S

struggling with pre-cise numbers and specific fields of expertise

either solvable or non-solvable

ToolBench

Rapid API

Hierarchical Structure

revisit the evaluation protocol introducedby previous works and identify a limitation in thisprotocol that leads to an artificially high pass rate

solver

self-reflectionmechanism, which re-activates AnyTool if the ini-tial solution proves impracticable

API retriever with a hierarchical structure

16,000 APIs from Rapid API

We should never forget that the human brain is perhaps the most complicated system in the known universe; if we are to build something roughly its equal, open-hearted collaboration will be key.

Researchers like Josh Tenenbaum, Anima Anandkumar, and Yejin Choi are also now headed in increasingly neurosymbolic directions. Large contingents at IBM, Intel, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft, among others, have started to invest seriously in neurosymbolic approaches. Swarat Chaudhuri and his colleagues are developing a field called “neurosymbolic programming”23 that is music to my ears.

Artur Garcez and Luis Lamb wrote a manifesto for hybrid models in 2009, called Neural-Symbolic Cognitive Reasoning. And some of the best-known recent successes in board-game playing (Go, Chess, and so forth, led primarily by work at Alphabet’s DeepMind) are hybrids. AlphaGo used symbolic-tree search, an idea from the late 195

No single AI approach will ever be enough on its own; we must master the art of putting diverse approaches together, if we are to have any hope at all.

Belittling unfashionable ideas that haven’t yet been fully explored is not the right way to go. Hinton is quite right that in the old days AI researchers tried—too soon—to bury deep learning. But Hinton is just as wrong to do the same today to symbol-manipulation.

For at least four reasons, hybrid AI, not deep learning alone (nor symbols alone) seems the best way forward:

n 1990, Hinton published a special issue of the journal Artificial Intelligence called Connectionist Symbol Processing that explicitly aimed to bridge the two worlds of deep learning and symbol manipulation.

When deep learning reemerged in 2012, it was with a kind of take-no-prisoners attitude that has characterized most of the last decade. By 2015, his hostility toward all things symbols had fully crystallized. He gave a talk at an AI workshop at Stanford comparing symbols to aether, one of science’s greatest mistakes.

Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts wrote in 1943, “A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity,” the only paper von Neumann found worthy enough to cite in his own foundational paper on computers.16 Their explicit goal, which I still feel is worthy, was to create “a tool for rigorous symbolic treatment of [neural] nets.”

Symbolic operations also underlie data structures like dictionaries or databases that might keep records of particular individuals and their properties (like their addresses, or the last time a salesperson has been in touch with them, and allow programmers to build libraries of reusable code, and ever larger modules, which ease the development of complex systems. Such techniques are ubiquitous, the bread and butter of the software world.

If symbols are so critical for software engineering, why not use them in AI, too?

s the renowned computer scientist Peter Norvig famously and ingeniously pointed out, when you have Google-sized data, you have a new option: simply look at logs of how users correct themselves.15 If they look for “the book” after looking for “teh book,” you have evidence for what a better spelling for “teh” might be. No rules of spelling required.

our word processor, for example, has a string of symbols, collected in a file, to represent your document. Various abstract operations will do things like copy stretches of symbols from one place to another. Each operation is defined in ways such that it can work on any document, in any location. A word processor, in essence, is a kind of application of a set of algebraic operations (“functions” or “subroutines”) that apply to variables (such as “currentl

it goes back at least to 1945, when the legendary mathematician von Neumann outlined the architecture that virtually all modern computers follow. Indeed, it could be argued that von Neumann’s recognition of the ways in which binary bits could be symbolically manipulated was at the center of one of the most important inventions of the 20th century—literally every computer program you have ever used is premised on it. (The “embeddings” that are popular in neural networks also look remarkably like symbols, though nobody seems to acknowledge this. Often, for example, any given word will be assigned a unique vector, in a one-to-one fashion that is quite analogous to the ASCII code. Calling something an “embedding” doesn’t mean it’s not a symbol.)

lassical computer science, of the sort practiced by Turing and von Neumann and everyone after, manipulates symbols in a fashion that we think of as algebraic, and that’s what’s really at stake. In simple algebra, we have three kinds of entities, variables (like x and y), operations (like + or -), and bindings (which tell us, for example, to let x = 12 for the purpose of some calculation). If I tell you that x = y + 2, and that y = 12, you can solve for the value of x by binding y to 12 and adding to that value, yielding 14. Virtually all the world’s software works by stringing algebraic operations together, assembling them into ever more complex algorithms.

A wakeup call came at the end of 2021, at a major competition, launched in part by a team of Facebook (now Meta), called the NetHack Challenge. NetHack, an extension of an earlier game known as Rogue, and forerunner to Zelda, is a single-user dungeon exploration game that was released in 1987.

A lot of confusion in the field has come from not seeing the differences between the two—having symbols, and processing them algebraically. To understand how AI has wound up in the mess that it is in, it is essential to see the difference between the two.What are symbols? They are basically just codes. Symbols offer a principled mechanism for extrapolation: lawful, algebraic procedures that can be applied universally, independently of any similarity to known examples. They are (at least for now) still the best way to handcraft knowledge, and to deal robustly with abstractions in novel situations.

And yet, for the most part, that’s how most current AI proceeds. Hinton and many others have tried hard to banish symbols altogether.

A 2022 paper from Google concludes that making GPT-3-like models bigger makes them more fluent, but no more trustworthy.

f scaling doesn’t get us to safe autonomous driving, tens of billions of dollars of investment in scaling could turn out to be for naught.

Among other things, we are very likely going to need to revisit a once-popular idea that Hinton seems devoutly to want to crush: the idea of manipulating symbols

scaling starts to falter on some measures, such as toxicity, truthfulness, reasoning, and common sense.

What’s more, the so-called scaling laws aren’t universal laws like gravity but rather mere observations that might not hold forever, much like Moore’s law, a trend in computer chip production that held for decades but arguably began to slow a decade ago.11

There are serious holes in the scaling argument. To begin with, the measures that have scaled have not captured what we desperately need to improve: genuine comprehension. Insiders have long known that one of the biggest problems in AI research is the tests (“benchmarks”) that we use to evaluate AI systems

hat should we do about it? One option, currently trendy, might be just to gather more data.

For example, when we typed this: “You poured yourself a glass of cranberry juice, but then absentmindedly, you poured about a teaspoon of grape juice into it. It looks OK. You try sniffing it, but you have a bad cold, so you can’t smell anything. You are very thirsty. So you …” GPT continued with “drink it. You are now dead.”

Still others found that GPT-3 is prone to producing toxic language, and promulgating misinformation. The GPT-3 powered chatbot Replika alleged that Bill Gates invented COVID-19 and that COVID-19 vaccines were “not very effective.” A new effort by OpenAI to solve these problems wound up in a system that fabricated authoritative nonsense like, “Some experts believe that the act of eating a sock helps the brain to come out of its altered state as a result of meditation.

A deep-learning system has mislabeled an apple as an iPod because the apple had a piece of paper in front with “iPod” written across. Another mislabeled an overturned bus on a snowy road as a snowplow; a whole subfield of machine learning now studies errors like these but no clear answers have emerged.

Current deep-learning systems frequently succumb to stupid errors like this. They sometimes misread dirt on an image that a human radiologist would recognize as a glitch.

The car failed to recognize the person (partly obscured by the stop sign) and the stop sign (out of its usual context on the side of a road); the human driver had to take over. The scene was far enough outside of the training database that the system had no idea what to do.

it occasionally confuses baby photos of my two children. But the stakes are low—if the app makes an occasional error, I am not going to throw away my phone.

I asked my iPhone the other day to find a picture of a rabbit

Google’s latest contribution to language is a system (Lamda) that is so flighty that one of its own authors recently acknowledged it is prone to producing “bullshit.”5