←back to thread

CauseNet: Towards a causality graph extracted from the web

(causenet.org)
229 points geetee | 2 comments | 02 Sep 25 05:26 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tgv ◴[02 Sep 25 07:42 UTC] No.45100192[source]▶
This makes little sense to me. Ontologies and all that have been tried and have always been found to be too brittle. Take the examples from the front page (which I expect to be among the best in their set): human_activity => climate_change. Those are such a broad concepts that it's practically useless. Or disease => death. There's no nuance at all. There isn't even a definition of what "disease" is, let alone a way to express that myxomatosis is lethal for only European rabbits, not humans, nor gold fish.
replies(15): >>45100256 #>>45100368 #>>45100385 #>>45100399 #>>45100512 #>>45100673 #>>45100711 #>>45100804 #>>45101092 #>>45101484 #>>45103042 #>>45103397 #>>45104046 #>>45108308 #>>45114204 #
1. tomaskafka ◴[02 Sep 25 11:13 UTC] No.45101484[source]▶
But “disease => death” + AI => surely at least few billion in VC funding.
replies(1): >>45101674 #
2. taneq ◴[02 Sep 25 11:35 UTC] No.45101674[source]▶
The best thing about this statement is that it can be read as 'the fact that disease causes death, plus the application of AI, will surely lead to billions VC funding' but it can also be read as 'disease is to death as AI is to a few billion in VC funding'. :D