Comments on: Does Big Search change science? http://www.human20.com/does-big-search-change-science/ Technology changes you man. Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:23:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Infreemation » Blog Archive » Search gets smarter, we get stupider http://www.human20.com/does-big-search-change-science/comment-page-1/#comment-175 Infreemation » Blog Archive » Search gets smarter, we get stupider Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:23:20 +0000 http://www.bitcurrent.com/?p=142#comment-175 [...] issue with the Wired article in Google and the end of everything and Alistair Croll piles on in Does Big Search change science? emphasizing the familiar scientific refrain: correlation does not necessitate [...] [...] issue with the Wired article in Google and the end of everything and Alistair Croll piles on in Does Big Search change science? emphasizing the familiar scientific refrain: correlation does not necessitate [...]

]]> By: Ian Rae http://www.human20.com/does-big-search-change-science/comment-page-1/#comment-174 Ian Rae Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:18:50 +0000 http://www.bitcurrent.com/?p=142#comment-174 Great article by Ingram and awesome R&G reference. The kind of AI required for search to take on that level of intelligence is widely considered to be an extremely hard problem by extreme optimists. I'm still waiting for the fair use backlash against search engines. It will happen as surely as folks will realize traditional social networks are much better than web based ones at maintaining some shred of privacy. I leave you will this gem: "Rosencrantz: [flips coin which lands as 'heads'] 78 in a row. A new record, I imagine. Guildenstern: Is that what you imagine? A new record? Rosencrantz: Well... Guildenstern: No questions? Not a flicker of doubt? Rosencrantz: I could be wrong." Great article by Ingram and awesome R&G reference. The kind of AI required for search to take on that level of intelligence is widely considered to be an extremely hard problem by extreme optimists.

I’m still waiting for the fair use backlash against search engines. It will happen as surely as folks will realize traditional social networks are much better than web based ones at maintaining some shred of privacy.

I leave you will this gem:
“Rosencrantz: [flips coin which lands as 'heads'] 78 in a row. A new record, I imagine.
Guildenstern: Is that what you imagine? A new record?
Rosencrantz: Well…
Guildenstern: No questions? Not a flicker of doubt?
Rosencrantz: I could be wrong.”

]]> By: Aaron deMello http://www.human20.com/does-big-search-change-science/comment-page-1/#comment-173 Aaron deMello Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:38:13 +0000 http://www.bitcurrent.com/?p=142#comment-173 I think the concept of mining historical data to infer or detect causality is inherently flawed. I also think that this is not the goal of Google's massive data analysis. So I agree with out that correlation is not causality and I think, so would the Googlers. But it does give us some evidence - a hint, at best - to what to proffer when notoriously fickle humans are asking a question with many, many possible answers. So to narrow the millions in the thousands and then into the hundreds and tens.... that is something Google is very, very good at. I think the concept of mining historical data to infer or detect causality is inherently flawed. I also think that this is not the goal of Google’s massive data analysis.

So I agree with out that correlation is not causality and I think, so would the Googlers.

But it does give us some evidence – a hint, at best – to what to proffer when notoriously fickle humans are asking a question with many, many possible answers. So to narrow the millions in the thousands and then into the hundreds and tens…. that is something Google is very, very good at.

]]>