4 ms·
This has a flavor of reviving some ideas on how search will change that had been popular in the late 1990s / early 2000s. There were a number of proposals that
by mjn 14y ago
This has a flavor of reviving some ideas on how search will change that had been popular in the late 1990s / early 2000s. There were a number of proposals that "search engines" as a tool that users use to query for information should be replaced with a paradigm of "software agents" that build a model of what the user is looking for or trying to do, and which then roam around the web on the user's behalf. Here's a survey of some of those proposals from a 1999 Nature article: http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/agents/agents.html http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/agents/agents.html
This isn't meant to be a criticism, because implementation makes a huge difference, so it's quite plausible that a proposed-and-didn't-catch-on idea could catch on in another form. For example, Google has much better profile data on you than late-'90s research systems were able to collect. But I think looking at the previous iteration of attempts is still interesting.
- ilaksh 14y agoIts not that the idea didn't catch on, its that they were unsuccessful. Just like most attempts that aimed towards 'strong' or general artificial intelligence were unsuccessful. Natural language understanding is not necessarily general intelligence but it is closer. The difference is not so much about the profile data that Google has now but rather the AI approaches which are available. For example, the type of hierarchical hidden Markov models that Kurzweil goes into detail on in his book have a broader application than most AI approaches previously used. Also the body of text which Google can process and the amount of processing power Google has contribute to making the goal feasible.