---- Google's Second Brain - The Knowledge Graph and the Evolution of Search
SevenCubed - 8:53 pm on Dec 17, 2012 (gmt 0)
Google is an advertising company Period They need places to display ads Period They need people to click ads Period They are in the business of distraction Period The more distracting links that can be populated around a searcher's original related query, the more opportunity to click on something else that may lead to a page with more ads on it. It's not complicated to figure out.
The knowledge base Metaweb built is called Freebase, and it’s still in operation today. It’s a collaborative database—technically, a semantic graph—that grows through the contributions of volunteers, who carefully specify the properties of each new entity and how it fits into existing knowledge categories.
Another prime example of google exploiting the open source and volunteer communities. But beyond that obvious statement it also indicates that they are not having much success building this knowledge graph through an algorithm so in desperation they go out and look for yet another pool of talented individuals and buy them and claim the innovation under the google banner. They closed their innovative department didn't they? Labs.
Clearly they recognized the value of Freebase but how did Freebase come to be what it was? Through human input.
While Freebase is now hosted by Google, it’s still open to submissions from anyone, and the information in it can be freely reused under a Creative Commons license.
Indeed. One of the wealthiest companies on the planet has no moral objections to free slave labour for their profit.
But Giannandrea is careful to point out that Metaweb wasn’t trying to build an AI system. “We explicitly avoided hard problems about reasoning or complicated logic structures,” he says. “We just wanted to build a big enough data set that it could be useful.
I don't know much about the individual quoted, or the Metaweb company but they at least seem to have enough common sense left in them to know that organizing human knowledge requires a degree of reasoning, something a computer will never be able to do.
For the sake of debate lets assume that they do succeed in putting together whatever they are trying to accomplish here, what then? What is it really?
A knowledge graph is based on HISTORY. At the speed of the Internet history is old news. It is only worth its weight for comparison purposes not for bringing important new insights to light quickly as they are born in people's minds. For that, I'm realizing, there's #hashtags in Twitter. People push ideas, not on me, but just out there. I can search for unfolding ideas long before any search engine becomes "aware" of it.
Just ask any newspaper company these days how much they have suffered since the birth of the Internet. So really what is a knowledge graph except anything more than glorified front page headlines of a newspaper?
So many people are seriously loosing their ability to think for themselves. To many poor fish are gobbling this stuff up hook line and sinker.