4 ms·

In all honesty, llms are probably going to make all this entirely redundant. As such semantic web was not a natural follower to what we had before, and not web

In all honesty, llms are probably going to make all this entirely redundant. As such semantic web was not a natural follower to what we had before, and not web 3.0.

asymmetric 2y ago
Have you read the article? It addresses this point towards the end.
- tannhaeuser 2y ago
  And it fails to address why SemWeb failed in its heyday: that there's no business case for releasing open data of any kind "on the web" (unless you're wikidata or otherwise financed via public money) the only consequence being that 1. you get less clicks 2. you make it easier for your competitors (including Google) to aggregate your data. And that hasn't changed with LLMs, quite the opposite. To think a turd such as JSON-LD can save the "SemWeb" (which doesn't really exist), and even add CSV as yet another RDF format to appease "JSON scientists" lol seems beyond absurd. Also, Facebook's Open Graph annotations in HTML meta-links are/were probably the most widespread (trivial) implementation of SemWeb. SemWeb isn't terrible but is entirely driven by TBL's long-standing enthusiasm for edge-labelled graph-like databases (predating even his WWW efforts eg [1]), plus academia's need for topics to produce papers on. It's a good thing to let it go in the last decade and re-focus on other/classic logic apps such as Prolog and SAT solvers. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENQUIRE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENQUIRE
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  yes
peterlk 2y ago
The article addresses this point with the following: > It would of course be possible to sic Chatty-Jeeps on the raw markup and have it extract all of this stuff automatically. But there are some good reasons why not. > > The first is that large language models (LLMs) routinely get stuff wrong. If you want bots to get it right, provide the metadata to ensure that they do. > > The second is that requiring an LLM to read the web is throughly disproportionate and exclusionary. Everyone parsing the web would need to be paying for pricy GPU time to parse out the meaning of the web. It would feel bizarre if "technological progress" meant that fat GPUs were required for computers to read web pages.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The first point is moot, because human annotation would also have some amount of error, either through mistakes (interns being paid nothing to add it) or maliciously (SEO). Plus, human annotation would be multi-lingual, which leads to a host of other problems that LLMs don't have to the same extent. The second point is silly, because there is no reason for everyone to train their own LLMs on the raw web. You'd have a few companies or projects that handle the LLM training, and everyone else uses those LLMs. I'm not a big fan of LLMs, and not even a big believer in their future, but I still think they have a much better chance of being useful for these types of tasks than the semantic web. Semantic web is a dead idea, people should really allow it to rest.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  While both of these points a valid today they are likely going to be invalidated going forward - assume that what you can conceive is technically possible will become technically possible. In 5 years resource price is likely negligible and accuracy is high enough that you just trust it.
null_investor 2y ago
It's HN, most people don't read the article and jump into whatever conclusion they have at the moment despite not being an expert in the field.
- xoac 2y ago
  He had it summarized by chatgpt
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  As I already pointed out, none of the arguments the author brings up are really relevant. Resources and accuracy will not be a concern in 5 years. What makes you think that I am not an expert btw? It indeed seems like you appear to believ that what's written on the internet is true. So if someone writes that LLMs are not a contester to semantic web - then it might be true. Could it be, that I merely challenge that author of the blog article and don't take his predictions for granted?

In all honesty, llms are probably going to make all this entirely redundant. As such semantic web was not a natural follower to what we had before, and not web 3.0.

asymmetric 2y ago

Have you read the article? It addresses this point towards the end.

tannhaeuser 2y ago
And it fails to address why SemWeb failed in its heyday: that there's no business case for releasing open data of any kind "on the web" (unless you're wikidata or otherwise financed via public money) the only consequence being that 1. you get less clicks 2. you make it easier for your competitors (including Google) to aggregate your data. And that hasn't changed with LLMs, quite the opposite. To think a turd such as JSON-LD can save the "SemWeb" (which doesn't really exist), and even add CSV as yet another RDF format to appease "JSON scientists" lol seems beyond absurd. Also, Facebook's Open Graph annotations in HTML meta-links are/were probably the most widespread (trivial) implementation of SemWeb. SemWeb isn't terrible but is entirely driven by TBL's long-standing enthusiasm for edge-labelled graph-like databases (predating even his WWW efforts eg [1]), plus academia's need for topics to produce papers on. It's a good thing to let it go in the last decade and re-focus on other/classic logic apps such as Prolog and SAT solvers. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENQUIRE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENQUIRE
tossandthrow 2y ago
yes

peterlk 2y ago

The article addresses this point with the following: > It would of course be possible to sic Chatty-Jeeps on the raw markup and have it extract all of this stuff automatically. But there are some good reasons why not. > > The first is that large language models (LLMs) routinely get stuff wrong. If you want bots to get it right, provide the metadata to ensure that they do. > > The second is that requiring an LLM to read the web is throughly disproportionate and exclusionary. Everyone parsing the web would need to be paying for pricy GPU time to parse out the meaning of the web. It would feel bizarre if "technological progress" meant that fat GPUs were required for computers to read web pages.

tsimionescu 2y ago
The first point is moot, because human annotation would also have some amount of error, either through mistakes (interns being paid nothing to add it) or maliciously (SEO). Plus, human annotation would be multi-lingual, which leads to a host of other problems that LLMs don't have to the same extent. The second point is silly, because there is no reason for everyone to train their own LLMs on the raw web. You'd have a few companies or projects that handle the LLM training, and everyone else uses those LLMs. I'm not a big fan of LLMs, and not even a big believer in their future, but I still think they have a much better chance of being useful for these types of tasks than the semantic web. Semantic web is a dead idea, people should really allow it to rest.
tossandthrow 2y ago
While both of these points a valid today they are likely going to be invalidated going forward - assume that what you can conceive is technically possible will become technically possible. In 5 years resource price is likely negligible and accuracy is high enough that you just trust it.

null_investor 2y ago

It's HN, most people don't read the article and jump into whatever conclusion they have at the moment despite not being an expert in the field.

xoac 2y ago
He had it summarized by chatgpt
tossandthrow 2y ago
As I already pointed out, none of the arguments the author brings up are really relevant. Resources and accuracy will not be a concern in 5 years. What makes you think that I am not an expert btw? It indeed seems like you appear to believ that what's written on the internet is true. So if someone writes that LLMs are not a contester to semantic web - then it might be true. Could it be, that I merely challenge that author of the blog article and don't take his predictions for granted?