W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2019

RE: Solomon''s curse and search Bias

From: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:49:12 -0500
To: "'Thomas Passin'" <tpassin@tompassin.net>, <paoladimaio10@googlemail.com>, "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: "'schema.org Mailing List'" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>, <public-aikr@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008e01d4d38c$825a86c0$870f9440$@verizon.net>
From my perspective, this issue boils down to:

	1. How well tools help us achieve our objectives;
	2. How well our objectives support our deeply held personal values; and
	3. Whether we are comfortable turning over to advertisers, marketers, and search engines the determination of our personal values, in which case it seems to me that human life may be pretty meaningless.

Thus, it seems to me that might be the last function we might want to consider turning over to AI.  

Instead, it seems like we should hold AI tools strictly accountable to reporting their intentions and results in terms that are not only human readable but also readily subject to evaluation against human values.

It also seems to me that we can help AI agents help us by documenting our values and intentions (goals and objectives) in a format that is both human- and machine-readable, like StratML Part 2, Performance Plans and Reports.

To the degree my thoughts may reflect my ignorance on these matters, I look forward to learning the error of my logic.  I hope overcome the natural human tendency to embrace artificial ignorance.  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/artificial-ignorance-owen-ambur/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Passin <tpassin@tompassin.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:48 AM
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com; SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: schema.org Mailing List <public-schemaorg@w3.org>; public-aikr@w3.org
Subject: Re: Solomon''s curse and search Bias

On 3/5/2019 1:01 AM, Paola Di Maio wrote:
> what I am trying to say, I guess, is that to understand the world and 
> resolve the meaning of life we need to reconcile the vastly fragmented 
> data and information to yield a reasonably comprehensive search 
> result,  even when ordering the sandwich

I don't think that this is how our brains are constructed.  And I don't want to unify the universe of knowledge before ordering a sandwich for lunch.  Instead, I want to do it in a way that is easy, low energy, and is compatible with my needs and moods of the moment.  Maybe I want comfort food, maybe I want a gourmet experience, maybe I want to impress a date, and so on.

So I want my brain to be able to take shortcuts that reliably serve my (mostly unconscious) intentions.  That's a long way from consolidating the universe and the meaning of life to order a sandwich.

I think that, if there is one aspect of all this that tops the others, it would be the brain's ability to associate information, memories, ideas, concepts, etc., extremely quickly so as to bring a focused subset of its information to bear on a situation.  We hardly even know how all those different kinds on things (information, memories, etc.) could be encoded and retrieved in similar ways, let alone how to retrieve mainly the most relevant of them.

Solve the above, and your search engines will become much closer to what you want (and what we all of us want as well).

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2019 19:49:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:58 UTC