←back to thread

CauseNet: Towards a causality graph extracted from the web

(causenet.org)
229 points geetee | 1 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 #
SilverElfin ◴[02 Sep 25 15:05 UTC] No.45104046[source]▶
What is an ontology exactly? I see Palantir talking about it all the time and it just sounds like vague marketing.
replies(2): >>45104347 #>>45105883 #
1. GloriousMEEPT ◴[02 Sep 25 15:28 UTC] No.45104347[source]▶
These days anyone can spin up a developer account and check it out. Near as I could tell, you can create abstract 'objects' and link them to datasets/columns in the environment. And then you can link objects together. It's basically just an ER modeling tool, but they have great sales and seemed to have convinced people that they are constructing ontologies.