by Mike Masnick
Mon, Mar 9th 2009 3:57am
For years and years and years, we've been hearing about hugely ambitious projects to try to create "thinking" machines that can absorb a ton of information and spit out facts. Yet, every time, when the true tests begin, the project never gets very far, for a variety of reasons. First, the technology usually isn't that good. Having a computer decide what is "truthful" isn't exactly an easy problem -- especially when plenty of humans can't even agree on what is, and what is not, truthful. Second, these companies have failed to come up with a reason why anyone would really want/need to use such a thing. After all, how useful is a "truth" machine compared to a simple search engine? These projects come and go, and there's always someone insisting that the holy grail is on its way. The latest is Stephen Wolfram, something of a high tech oddity. He built a tremendous success with Mathematica and clearly is a sort of techie's techie. That's why it's not as easy to simply dismiss his claims to have created just such a knowledge system. That said, I'm still not convinced there's a particularly good use case for the product -- and, even if it's much better than what's come before, chances are it still has an incredibly long way to go. Wolfram is a super smart guy -- and I do hope he's figured out how to really create such a thing, but given how many similar claims we've seen in the past, it seems only wise to express some significant skepticism.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Media Critic Calls On Journalists To Be Obedient Stenographers
- Let Them Eat Facts: Why Fact Checking Is Mostly Useless In Convincing Voters
- Here's The Truth: Shiva Ayyadurai Didn't Invent Email
- If You're A Journalist Who Thinks That Pointing Out Lies Shows Bias, You're Not A Journalist
- Yes, The Democratic National Committee Flat Out Lied In Claiming No Donor Financial Info Leaked