Is that the main thrust of it?
AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
11–20 of 190 posts
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#12Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#13It might be short lived, who knows, but it's interesting that the recent progress came from capturing/consuming rather than systematically eliminating the nuance in language.
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#14Expresses a longing for the semantic web. > Remember Semantic Web? The web was supposed to evolve into semantically structured, linked, machine-readable data that would enable amazing opportunities. That never happened. I think the lesson to be learned is in answering the question "Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
>"Why didn't the semantic web happen?" Because web content is generated by humans, not engineers.
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#15Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#16> If all knowledge were stored in a structured way with rich semantic linking, then very primitive natural language processing algorithms could parse question like the example at the beginning of the article, and could find the answer using orders of magnitude fewer computational resources. In vertical markets, can LLMs generate a "semantic web of linked data" knowledge graph to be parsed with efficient NLP algorithm…
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#17One can speak in their native language to a computer now and it mostly understands what is meant and can retrieve information or even throw together a scaffold of a project somewhat reliably.
It's not particularly good at writing software, however. Still feels like a human is needed to make sure it doesn't generate nonsense or apparently pretty insecure code.
So I'm not sure the author got the point across that they wished, but aren't vector databases basically a semantic storage/retrieval technology?
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#18if it's a space issue, "semantic web" is far more relevant to the article than "personal computing".
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#19To me, it feels similar to "If everyone just cooperated perfectly and helped each other out, we wouldn't need laws/money/government/religion/etc."
Yes, you're probably right, but no that won't happen the way you want to, because we are part of a complex system, and everyone has their very different incentives.
Semantic web was a standard suggested by Google, but unless every browser got on board to break web pages that didn't conform to that standard, then people aren't going to fully follow it. Instead, browsers (correctly in my view) decided to be as flexible as possible to render pages in a best-effort way, because everyone had a slightly different way to build web pages.
I feel like people get too stuck on the "correct" way to do things, but the reality of computers, as is the reality of everything, is that there are lots of different ways to do things, and we need to have systems that are comfortable with handling that.
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#20Expresses a longing for the semantic web. > Remember Semantic Web? The web was supposed to evolve into semantically structured, linked, machine-readable data that would enable amazing opportunities. That never happened. I think the lesson to be learned is in answering the question "Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
I have literally been doing we development since their was a web, and the companies I developed for are openly hostile to the idea of putting their valuable, or perceived valuable, information online in a format that could be easily scraped. Information doesn't want to be free, it wants to be paid for. Unless the information shared pulls visitors to the site it doesn't need to be public.