SemWeb + LLMs etc, here or a new group?

Something big & new has arrived, but it is at a tangent to regular
business, so maybe a new Community Group/list or whatever should be
considered. I don't know what folks think about boundaries. Let me tell you
my story...

I'm asking because I've been playing with it a bit, one specific angle,
using LlamaIndex to use Graph Retrieval Augmented Generation against
OpenAI's GPT API. Sorry, I haven't links at hand, but the papers on RAG and
Graph RAG, Graph of Thoughts are on arXiv. I have very naive code that runs
at :

(Isn't ego great? Found my own thing immediately).

My immediate conclusions are that conceptually it's a no--brainer to attach
such systems to Linked Data (naturally a moderate pain in practice). LLMs
expect verbals, so you give them, them. A RAG has RDF graph URLs as
pointers, it looks them up (HTTP, HTTP), chases the schema definition,
pulls in the definition of the property or class, it has a sentence
comparable to the texts it's been trained on. It's very floppy, but I
believe potentially useful.

(I spent a long time bugged by this - surely we can just give URIs to the
LLM as some kind of first class token? I still haven't a clue, but for now
there are easier ways in).

I accidentally came up with a TED Talk-style analogy that might work
for the big picture. For something unrelated I typed in 'warp start' when I
meant 'yarn start'. How I giggled! But yeah, the Web (very strongly
including Linked Data, as much OWLishness as you want) is a clear Warp,
where the AI bits can fill it out with Weft of information fabric.
(Apologies to Tim re. book-naming).

So yeah, in a rambly way, do you see why I think another group is something
to bear in mind? Personally I'm happy either way, as long as the W3C tries
to keep their eye on the ball. Blockchain Web3, maybe not so much. But
LLMs, I'd say in scope, here or somewhere parallel.


---- <>

Received on Monday, 25 September 2023 23:27:26 UTC