Wolfram Alpha - the next Google?
Discussion
This is a general news story - Mods please don't bury it in the Computer forum - the implications are much wider:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8026331.stm
Is this going to turn the web into a brain?
Useful, or gimic?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8026331.stm
Is this going to turn the web into a brain?
Useful, or gimic?
just me said:
Gimmick. Not a very good one at that.
Google has a long way to go before it matures. As more and more multimedia gets indexed and more and more meta-information gets indexed, and computers get more powerful, it will become more and more useful.
Rubbish. This is the start of something much more advanced than indexing data. Just getting going, but this is the early days of natural language interfaces to what will become AI.Google has a long way to go before it matures. As more and more multimedia gets indexed and more and more meta-information gets indexed, and computers get more powerful, it will become more and more useful.
Commercial applications? Zero.
Things it can do better than Google? Zero.
Potentially interesting natural language engine? One.
Cool name? One.
Even Wolfram admits that people just drop the syntax and use simple search terms. What does that remind me of? Oh yes, GOOGLE.
If there were any consumer or business demand for this product Google would be all over it.
There isn't so they aren't.
As for the link with AI - that's tenuous at best.
If a computer can handle natural language then you have improved the interface.
Rather than improve its intelligence you have simply made it communicate better; as far as "understanding" is concerned you are still some distance from a Turing machine.
Things it can do better than Google? Zero.
Potentially interesting natural language engine? One.
Cool name? One.
Even Wolfram admits that people just drop the syntax and use simple search terms. What does that remind me of? Oh yes, GOOGLE.
If there were any consumer or business demand for this product Google would be all over it.
There isn't so they aren't.
As for the link with AI - that's tenuous at best.
If a computer can handle natural language then you have improved the interface.
Rather than improve its intelligence you have simply made it communicate better; as far as "understanding" is concerned you are still some distance from a Turing machine.
walm said:
Commercial applications? Zero.
Things it can do better than Google? Zero.
Potentially interesting natural language engine? One.
Cool name? One.
Even Wolfram admits that people just drop the syntax and use simple search terms. What does that remind me of? Oh yes, GOOGLE.
If there were any consumer or business demand for this product Google would be all over it.
There isn't so they aren't.
As for the link with AI - that's tenuous at best.
If a computer can handle natural language then you have improved the interface.
Rather than improve its intelligence you have simply made it communicate better; as far as "understanding" is concerned you are still some distance from a Turing machine.
Nope. This is the start. These progs are attempting a semantic analysis of the queries. Things it can do better than Google? Zero.
Potentially interesting natural language engine? One.
Cool name? One.
Even Wolfram admits that people just drop the syntax and use simple search terms. What does that remind me of? Oh yes, GOOGLE.
If there were any consumer or business demand for this product Google would be all over it.
There isn't so they aren't.
As for the link with AI - that's tenuous at best.
If a computer can handle natural language then you have improved the interface.
Rather than improve its intelligence you have simply made it communicate better; as far as "understanding" is concerned you are still some distance from a Turing machine.
Except they can't. All they do is a close approximation.
Even if they get the software working right, people would have to phrase the question correctly. They often don't.
It's all hot air.
Give us one commercial application or scenario where this will take away Google's market share? What can it do that Google can't do?
Reminds me of the hype over Facebook's billion-plus valuation (which has been steadily coming down) or Twitter, which is useless except as a rumour-mill or emergency notification/news dissemination service, assuming enough "network nodes" get the original notification. Commercially USELESS.
Even if they get the software working right, people would have to phrase the question correctly. They often don't.
It's all hot air.
Give us one commercial application or scenario where this will take away Google's market share? What can it do that Google can't do?
Reminds me of the hype over Facebook's billion-plus valuation (which has been steadily coming down) or Twitter, which is useless except as a rumour-mill or emergency notification/news dissemination service, assuming enough "network nodes" get the original notification. Commercially USELESS.
Edited by just me on Friday 1st May 09:13
just me said:
Give us one commercial application or scenario where this will take away Google's market share? What can it do that Google can't do?
Could have niche uses in the mobile market i guess, speak a question into the phone and it speaks the answer back, assuming this search engine works by simple language dialog.That's just speech to text input. It could be as easily implemented for Google or any other search engine. And the winner there would be TellMe, a division of Microsoft. Dunno about the UK, but in the US we have a lot of services available on the phone where all we have to do is say the query/input. Flight arrivals, banking and credit card info, call routing, weather and stock quotes, movie show times, package tracking, service status, etc., etc. All powered by TellMe and all available today.
How would WolfRam revolutionize this? Answer: It won't.
How would WolfRam revolutionize this? Answer: It won't.
s2art said:
Nope. This is the start. These progs are attempting a semantic analysis of the queries.
This is not anywhere near the start. It's been going on for decades, and hasn't produced anything earth shattering yet.I'm not sure exactly what the OP means by "the next Google". Google is an advertising company.
HundredthIdiot said:
s2art said:
Nope. This is the start. These progs are attempting a semantic analysis of the queries.
This is not anywhere near the start. It's been going on for decades, and hasn't produced anything earth shattering yet.I'm not sure exactly what the OP means by "the next Google". Google is an advertising company.
just me said:
That's just speech to text input. It could be as easily implemented for Google or any other search engine. And the winner there would be TellMe, a division of Microsoft. Dunno about the UK, but in the US we have a lot of services available on the phone where all we have to do is say the query/input. Flight arrivals, banking and credit card info, call routing, weather and stock quotes, movie show times, package tracking, service status, etc., etc. All powered by TellMe and all available today.
How would WolfRam revolutionize this? Answer: It won't.
From what i understand the wolfram thing condenses the output, removing the 'fluff' as it puts it, google would just return verbatim webpages which may or may not translate well to succinct spoken text.How would WolfRam revolutionize this? Answer: It won't.
Although like you, i get skeptical when people claim to revolutionise something..
Edited by scorp on Friday 1st May 12:58
This is just another take on the turing test.
Processing natural language is a red-herring anyway. What exactly will it acheve? I suppose we could create a chatterbot for people with no friends, it would be useful in spam-filters and for these £2.50 per txt chatlines.
But in the grand scheme of things it just an emulator. My laptop can play N64 roms but it doesn't make it an N64. A computer that can process natural language will not magically become self-aware.
All in all, while it may be an interesting avenue or research, I suspect it may just be a dead-end.
Still, nothing wrong with exploring new ways to enable 6billion people to search for free porn!
Processing natural language is a red-herring anyway. What exactly will it acheve? I suppose we could create a chatterbot for people with no friends, it would be useful in spam-filters and for these £2.50 per txt chatlines.
But in the grand scheme of things it just an emulator. My laptop can play N64 roms but it doesn't make it an N64. A computer that can process natural language will not magically become self-aware.
All in all, while it may be an interesting avenue or research, I suspect it may just be a dead-end.
Still, nothing wrong with exploring new ways to enable 6billion people to search for free porn!
gamefreaks said:
This is just another take on the turing test.
Processing natural language is a red-herring anyway. What exactly will it acheve? I suppose we could create a chatterbot for people with no friends, it would be useful in spam-filters and for these £2.50 per txt chatlines.
But in the grand scheme of things it just an emulator. My laptop can play N64 roms but it doesn't make it an N64. A computer that can process natural language will not magically become self-aware.
All in all, while it may be an interesting avenue or research, I suspect it may just be a dead-end.
Still, nothing wrong with exploring new ways to enable 6billion people to search for free porn!
It promises more than that. From the description it attempts to parse the query and then, when appropriate, perform computations to work out the best answer. That is a lot more than creating a chatterbox. So no, its not just an emulator. Processing natural language is a red-herring anyway. What exactly will it acheve? I suppose we could create a chatterbot for people with no friends, it would be useful in spam-filters and for these £2.50 per txt chatlines.
But in the grand scheme of things it just an emulator. My laptop can play N64 roms but it doesn't make it an N64. A computer that can process natural language will not magically become self-aware.
All in all, while it may be an interesting avenue or research, I suspect it may just be a dead-end.
Still, nothing wrong with exploring new ways to enable 6billion people to search for free porn!
scorp said:
just me said:
Give us one commercial application or scenario where this will take away Google's market share? What can it do that Google can't do?
Could have niche uses in the mobile market i guess, speak a question into the phone and it speaks the answer back, assuming this search engine works by simple language dialog.The Google application for Blackberry can search with spoken word and works very well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff