←back to thread

229 points geetee | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.233s | source
Show context
tgv ◴[] 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. __alexs ◴[] No.45103042[source]
Given we've tried to develop such ontologies constantly for thousands of years now. What do you think the cause for such hopeless optimism might be? If only we had a database of causal relationships to consult...