DISQUS

howie · 7 months ago

People are comparing it to google but as you mentioned, it seems to be more of a wikipedia competitor. It would be interesting as just a proof-of-concept that an AI or algorithm could create a dynamic almanac/encyclopedia/wikipedia. But as a search engine, i dont think it will give people what they want. What i want to see is an accuracy comparison with wikipedia. Where does it get its info from, really?

Molly · 7 months ago

howie,
That's my primary question as well. Even Encylopedia Brittanica was/is inaccurate in some major ways on certain subjects.

Daniel · 7 months ago

I first heard about this on Newsy, but since then I've been doing a lot of digging (being vaguely geeky, computery myself) and turns out they evidently plan to feature paid subscriptions that will allow you to do more with the data and possibly compute your own data through their supercomputer. Provided it can get enough publicity, I'd say that would be an intriguing option.

Howie, the program has access to a number of databases (though I don't know which ones specifically) that it works through and compiles its information from. I agree it is starting to border on AI, but of course there's still a long way to go before we get to that point. Still, a step in the right direction (assuming you think AI is the right direction)...

felix · 7 months ago

It will definitely be interesting to see if they can make a paid model work. I suppose access to a wide variety of structured data is interesting, kinda like a automated FreeBase I guess. Sort of like a one stop shop for a huge variety of information. I'm definitely not convinced, though, unless they've got something up their sleeve that we haven't seen yet.

Molly · 7 months ago

I, too, don't see an every day use for WA in my online work/play.
Thanks for the review, it's a good one and useful to those wondering what all the fuss is about.