Fred Wilson covered an interesting search innovation by one of his portfolio companies, Indeed, in which they interpolate salaries for job postings that don't include a salary.
Fred categorizes this clever trick as adding "intelligence" to search, but it's really an example of semantic extraction combined with search. Now this is a perfect example of how aspects of the semantic web will emerge. It's shallow, but very useful, and there's no requirement for exhaustive human meta-data entry or conformity to a standard.
Apr 17, 2008
Apr 11, 2008
Attractive but flawed
The Economist chimes in on the Semantic Web as well. I quote: "It sounds a mess and it is" ... reviews of Twine "have been mixed". But of course if people are investing millions is must be a good idea, right?
Listen, the idea of a semantic web is alluring, but it's just not going to happen. We can't agree on semantics in real life except in small groups or in very shallow ways. Computers just aren't going to be any better at it until we create something smarter than ourselves. These technologies are all parlor tricks when compared to the grand vision espoused by semantic web evangelists.
I'm not saying some of the automated semantic extraction technologies are useless. Some of them are very cool, and it is absolutely the way we should be heading (waiting for humans to tag everything is a waste of time). However, we need to recognize while this path is taking us somewhere good it will ultimately fall short of the vision--much in the same way that the AI field has given us some great improvements without approaching a true artificial general intelligence.
Listen, the idea of a semantic web is alluring, but it's just not going to happen. We can't agree on semantics in real life except in small groups or in very shallow ways. Computers just aren't going to be any better at it until we create something smarter than ourselves. These technologies are all parlor tricks when compared to the grand vision espoused by semantic web evangelists.
I'm not saying some of the automated semantic extraction technologies are useless. Some of them are very cool, and it is absolutely the way we should be heading (waiting for humans to tag everything is a waste of time). However, we need to recognize while this path is taking us somewhere good it will ultimately fall short of the vision--much in the same way that the AI field has given us some great improvements without approaching a true artificial general intelligence.
Labels:
agi,
semantic web
Mar 26, 2008
Semantic Web Pattern
Shorter Alex Iskold:
Introduction: The Semantic Web means lots of things to lots of people, but it's important and real!
Yes, I see a pattern...
Introduction: The Semantic Web means lots of things to lots of people, but it's important and real!
- Top-down approaches to semantic extraction (e.g. Google) are very successful and hard to compete with, but bottom-up approaches are possible now!
- RDF, Microformats, and meta-headers are used in narrow or limited applications, but we have choices!
- No one has a compelling killer app for the Semantic Web, but enterprises will buy anything that sounds good!
- APIs are available, so someone will build something cool any day now!
- Semantic search progress is practically non-existant, but a lot of people are trying!
- Since semantic search is a bust, more focused guess...I mean Semantic Extraction looks promising!
- Semantic databases are not production-ready yet and don't scale, but people are really working hard on the infrastructure to be ready when they take off!
Yes, I see a pattern...
Labels:
semantic web
Mar 12, 2008
Python, Lua, Ruby, or Scheme for Game Prototype?
I had an interesting idea for a casual game and was planning on prototyping it, but now I'm stuck on choosing a programming language to do so. I've had luck with Python and Pygame before, but for some reason can't get it to work on Vista.
Both Lua and Ruby look promising with active game/SDL libraries, but I keep thinking that they won't meet the future needs of the game if I take it past the prototype stage. Lua's lack of an object-oriented model bugs me, but I think I could get around that. Performance is also a concern, though. Ruby is definitely getting better, but I also need to understand how far I can push Ruby's for dynamic class members, and the online docs aren't so hot. Also for either one I'll probably need to learn how to write extensions in C to implement some of my ideas.
I'd really like to pick Scheme, but the game support is poor for existing implementations, as is the final distribution model for those that aren't compile-to-C. I have a half-built Scheme implementation from a while ago that would be ideal, but then that's yet another distraction from really getting to the prototype.
I have a feeling I'll start with Ruby and move to something else as necessary. I initially avoided Ruby, but now that I'm taking a closer look it seems pretty good for this type of work.
Both Lua and Ruby look promising with active game/SDL libraries, but I keep thinking that they won't meet the future needs of the game if I take it past the prototype stage. Lua's lack of an object-oriented model bugs me, but I think I could get around that. Performance is also a concern, though. Ruby is definitely getting better, but I also need to understand how far I can push Ruby's for dynamic class members, and the online docs aren't so hot. Also for either one I'll probably need to learn how to write extensions in C to implement some of my ideas.
I'd really like to pick Scheme, but the game support is poor for existing implementations, as is the final distribution model for those that aren't compile-to-C. I have a half-built Scheme implementation from a while ago that would be ideal, but then that's yet another distraction from really getting to the prototype.
I have a feeling I'll start with Ruby and move to something else as necessary. I initially avoided Ruby, but now that I'm taking a closer look it seems pretty good for this type of work.
Mar 4, 2008
Virtual Earth is not the goal
Rudy Rucker has an interesting and convincing post about the improbability of creating a mirror virtual Earth to replace the "real" one. Unfortunately, I think it conflates several issues and he's only right one of them--fortunately it's the his main point!
To get the main argument out of the way, he's absolutely correct that there's very little cost-benefit in simulating an exact duplicate of the Earth, and that such a simulation is probably doomed to failure because of cost, complexity, and theoretical physical limits.
However, that doesn't mean that the Earth won't end up as computronium anyway. I can easily see a chain of events whereby we create a virtual world (low fidelity and incomplete), load ourselves up into it, create new types of reality, and decide that the VR world is "better" along some cost-benefit axes and continue to convert all available matter. This means we can end of never creating a good simulation of Earth, but that we don't keep the old one around either.
I think Rudy is placing some value on the existing world such that, since we can't perfectly recreate it, we'll keep the old one around because it's so great. While I sympathize and love the Earth as it is, I think the whole point of the Sigularity is that we can't know the minds of post-singular beings and what value they will place on anything. It's very plausible that high-speed simulated worlds are more valuable--maybe even to the point of a necessity for Darwinian survival--that the slow-paced "real reality" is at best forgotten.
I don't think Stross speculates much on what post-singular beings do in computronium, but he does say it focuses more on completely new and complex forms of social interaction and economics. One need look no further than today's Web to see how little simulation is required to allow that to happen.
I'm not placing value judgements on these potential paths, but it's a safe bet that "matching nature" is not the value function that the post-singular beings will attempt to maximize.
To get the main argument out of the way, he's absolutely correct that there's very little cost-benefit in simulating an exact duplicate of the Earth, and that such a simulation is probably doomed to failure because of cost, complexity, and theoretical physical limits.
However, that doesn't mean that the Earth won't end up as computronium anyway. I can easily see a chain of events whereby we create a virtual world (low fidelity and incomplete), load ourselves up into it, create new types of reality, and decide that the VR world is "better" along some cost-benefit axes and continue to convert all available matter. This means we can end of never creating a good simulation of Earth, but that we don't keep the old one around either.
I think Rudy is placing some value on the existing world such that, since we can't perfectly recreate it, we'll keep the old one around because it's so great. While I sympathize and love the Earth as it is, I think the whole point of the Sigularity is that we can't know the minds of post-singular beings and what value they will place on anything. It's very plausible that high-speed simulated worlds are more valuable--maybe even to the point of a necessity for Darwinian survival--that the slow-paced "real reality" is at best forgotten.
I don't think Stross speculates much on what post-singular beings do in computronium, but he does say it focuses more on completely new and complex forms of social interaction and economics. One need look no further than today's Web to see how little simulation is required to allow that to happen.
I'm not placing value judgements on these potential paths, but it's a safe bet that "matching nature" is not the value function that the post-singular beings will attempt to maximize.
Labels:
singularity
Marc likes Obama
I respect Marc Andreessen, so I listen when Marc says he likes Obama. The last part of the post makes some good points:
First, Obama's organizational skills with the campaign should be a decent leading indicator of his ability to organize people in government. He's doing well so far, and this type of managing people is what the job of President is all about.
Second, he's experienced different cultures around the world, which gives him an excellent perspective in foreign matters. While this doesn't make him an instant expert on foreign policy, even my limited traveling in the U.S. and abroad tells me that this is an incredibly important factor that few presidential candidates have.
First, Obama's organizational skills with the campaign should be a decent leading indicator of his ability to organize people in government. He's doing well so far, and this type of managing people is what the job of President is all about.
Second, he's experienced different cultures around the world, which gives him an excellent perspective in foreign matters. While this doesn't make him an instant expert on foreign policy, even my limited traveling in the U.S. and abroad tells me that this is an incredibly important factor that few presidential candidates have.
Mar 1, 2008
Feeling good
So, obviously I'm out of surgery now. I'm at home, feeling pretty good. The pain is minimal and I'm just resting. I can't allow the neck area to get wet for the next two weeks, so that will make bathing a challenge, but all things considered this is going pretty well. Now I just have to wait for the pathology report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
