Things Not Strings -- Google Launches Knowledge Graph

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-things-not.html

by rryan • 14 years ago

284 139 14 years ago

googleblog.blogspot.com

geoffhill• 14 years ago

More clutter.

Clutter?! How could you call that clutter! Just because they're shoving more information down our throats that we don't want doesn't mean it's clutter!

Sure, you still have to find the source of the "summary" to understand it and determine how they got that information so it will make sense to you. But it's better than just giving you the search results which already have the summary! Right?

And yeah, the search results already have links to all the different kinds of [taj mahal]. Now you can filter down the top pages to a specific type instead of clicking on the link that matches what you want! It's so easy it takes an extra click!

You just don't understand, man. Google knows what you want, even if it isn't what you want. And you'll take it and like it. Psht... clutter.

hahainternet4• 14 years ago

More relevant results.

mdaniel• 14 years ago

And, if I understand this correctly, we can express more accurate and/or complex questions for which we will get those relevant results.

victork2• 14 years ago

I have to agree and even add it's more dangerous than that.

Never mind the fact that what attracted me to Google was its sober interface, its minimalist approach of results on the web (that's also why I like Hacker News). Never mind that Google tries to fit more information per inch square for no good reason and sacrifice readability of the "normal result", after all they are still a search engine.

But more worrying is that they are going to make assumptions without putting sources[1]. It's a very Orwellian approach to answers and that's something we should grow out of. There's a reason why we need sources: because what's written is just one of the way to see an event or somebody.

And Google, really your new Blogspot is awful, useless eye-candy.

[1] At least from what's shown on the blog.

hahainternet4• 14 years ago

None of this seems to be accurate. Their 'good reason' is that you searched for this information. That's why they're displaying it, in the most integrated way they can.

Your use of 'Orwellian' indicates you are just using buzzwords.

narphorium2• 14 years ago

The bold, black fact headings (Born, Died, Spouse, Children, etc) are actually links that you can click on to do a search for sources for that fact.

VikingCoder• 14 years ago

> after all they are still a search engine.

No, they are not.

"Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful."

crazygringo• 14 years ago

Or more useful information.

So far, Google has done an awfully good job of hiding everything not immediately relevant, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

soupboy• 14 years ago

I wonder if [http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2012/05/find-facts-and-do-res...] is related. It looks similar, but I can't verify as docs is blocked at my workplace.

riffraff2• 14 years ago

I can't try the search, but having tried the one in gdocs: yes it appears to be the same, to the point of showing search results when no factual data is available.

(I am baffled that someone would block google docs, you have my sympathy)

DrCatbox• 14 years ago

Where is this knowledge graph, how do I try it out?

tcwc• 14 years ago

I can't see this yet, but it looks like Google pull most of the structured info from Freebase (which they acquired in 2010). You can play with that at freebase.com.

rabidsnail2• 14 years ago

Quick, everybody download a copy of the freebase dataset before they kill it!

On the other hand, I'm glad something is coming out of the metaweb acquisition.

hollerith2• 14 years ago

Since the dataset has an open-source (CC-BY) license, I am at a loss to imagine how someone could kill it.

rabidsnail2• 14 years ago

The data that has already been released will be legal to redistribute forever (if there are still copies floating around). But google could decide at any point to stop making new dumps, and to stop hosting the existing ones. That's what I meant by "kill it".

narphorium2• 14 years ago

Freebase is not going anywhere but please help yourself to our complete data dumps: http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/Data_dumps

gcb• 14 years ago

didn't they try to launch knowledge graph some ten times after buying metaweb or something already?

diminish• 14 years ago

Apparently Google is chasing after a knowledge based web now; a semantic web of things. Google may end up sucking Wikipedia albeit categorized and also Wolfram Alpha.

bergie3• 14 years ago

Wikipedia is already available in a categorized and semantic format: http://dbpedia.org/About

kjhughes3• 14 years ago

We keep hearing rumblings of the coming semantic web:

  2001: Tim Bernes-Lee publishes "The Semantic Web" in Scientific American Magazine
  2006: Microsoft acquires Powerset
  2009: Microsoft touts Bing as a "decision engine"
  2010: Google acquires Metaweb
  2012: Google introduces "Knowledge Graph"

Is this the big one?

irickt3• 14 years ago

  2007+: work on machine operable Wikipedia (DBpedia, Semantic MediaWiki, Wikidata)
  2010: Apple acquires Siri
  2010: Facebook introduces Open Graph
  2011: Google, Bing, Yahoo (schema.org) agree to index embedded data

joshu• 14 years ago

you realize that the semantic web is not about the semantics of the data, but instead about the semantics of the schema, right?

sp332• 14 years ago

The semantic web allows computers to deal with the "content" of pages instead of just displaying them. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/

irickt3• 14 years ago

Any linking provides context thus semantics. Linking to a schema makes this explicit. So it's both, right? Or are you making another point?

mindcrime2• 14 years ago

you realize that the semantic web is not about the semantics of the data, but instead about the semantics of the schema, right?

I'm having trouble getting your point here. A schema can be thought of as metadata about the data to which it is applied; so "semantics of the schema" are also implicitly "semantics of the data" in a sense. I guess I'm missing some nuance about the point you're trying to make... would you care to elaborate?

rictic• 14 years ago

I'd give good odds that joshu already knows this, but I'd like to point out that a lot of work has gone into making freebase's schema machine readable. The schema is stored and constructed in the same way as all other data in freebase (as are metaschema, such as http://www.freebase.com/view/type/object/type and so on).

kjhughes3• 14 years ago

you realize that the semantic web is not about the semantics of the data, but instead about the semantics of the schema, right?

The meaning of semantics (semantics of semantics?) can get philosophical real quick. Here I'm just rolling with the OP's notion of things, not strings.

kleiba• 14 years ago

Slight correction: Microsoft acquired Powerset in 2008.

kjhughes3• 14 years ago

You're right. Thanks.

akg• 14 years ago

Interestingly there is no mention of G+ or Circles or personalized queries in the post.

mikek2• 14 years ago

As someone who has done research in the field, I can tell you - this is the future of search, and the key to true AI. Once we have a knowledge graph of the world, you will be able to ask questions and get answers, not documents. This will allow so much more automation - personal assistants like Siri will be able to "book me a room in San Francisco with a view of the ocean" or "give me a list of the schools all the children of American presidents went to" and so on.

There is an arms war here between Bing and Google - we can thank Microsoft for pressuring Google into making this happen sooner than they otherwise would have.

ralfd• 14 years ago

Bing? I Use it not much, have they done something in that direction?

I like WolframAlpha.

cglace• 14 years ago

They bought powerset a few years back and they did that.

sukuriant• 14 years ago

Just to be nitpicky, don't you mean "the key to true", expert-system based AI? Or, are you going the "human intelligence is a clustering system; therefore, true AI would have a similar method" route?

Both are valid, I'm just curious.

joe_the_user2• 14 years ago

I'm not sure if I would want to say "a knowledge graph of the world" is the "key to true AI".

I think the situation is closer to "true AI is the key to a usable if situationally depend knowledge graph". Because the world doesn't have single knowledge graph that you can learn and use in all situations. Certainly, you can find a lot of common instances where the average works but once you're past that, you need the kind of understanding of language that present day systems are far from having.

jasonwatkinspdx3• 14 years ago

"Because the world doesn't have single knowledge graph that you can learn and use in all situations."

The logical way to overcome this via a "data first" brute force approach is to build personalized knowledge graphs of every potential customer. Which is in effect what every statistically sophisticated large business is attempting.

nostrademons2• 14 years ago

Isn't this exactly what people thought in the 80s? Building knowledge into a computer of the relationships between entities in the world will let you write expert systems that work like humans?

mindcrime2• 14 years ago

Yes, and I - for one - am not convinced that that approach has been proven wrong so much as it just hasn't been realized yet, for whatever reason. If I had to guess, I'd say that "whatever reason" is some combination of not having sufficient hardware, and not fully understanding knowledge representation and reasoning algorithms well enough yet.

Of course I could be wrong, but I think there's a good chance that a lot of "Good Old AI" stuff is still valid, but that it was just too early for it then. Maybe it still is, time will tell.

JackC2• 14 years ago

I read at some point that a lot of interesting theoretical AI research was abandoned in the 80s, because the results (like expert systems) got good enough that they had commercial applications, and the focus changed from research to perfecting existing products. No idea if that's true, but it suggests that there might be room to pick up where people in the 80s left off. Especially given that computing resources and data archives are somewhat improved since then.

AkThhhpppt2• 14 years ago

Yes, but the "web of knowledge" folk were planning (ish) hand-added metadata to allow knowledge extraction by AI programs, with no real incentives or network effect to promote people doing that. Google got microdata (which are semantic annotation, if a lot less complicated than the old schemes) added to websites by saying they would include them in Pagerank calculation.

david927• 14 years ago

The Semantic Web is truly the all of those things -- but this is not that. My guess is that this will just end up as a sharpened version of the data section of Wikipedia results that we have now.

Why? Because they are selling it without mentioning why they won't fail where every other attempt has. There are huge difficulties in this. Have they turned a corner on the research that changes something? I don't see it in what they've so hinted at so far.

azov• 14 years ago

Google is sitting on an enormous pile of semantic data that dwarfs anything that any AI project could possibly use 20 or even 10 years ago. Of course it does not guarantee that they won't fail as well, but it sure gives them an edge.

JPKab2• 14 years ago

I think that there are two things in their favor here:

First, they are Google, and therefore possess huge quantities of data and the ability, courtesy of their uber map reduce prowess and ultra-fast custom hardware, to make sense of it.

Second, they bought Metaweb (makers of Freebase) and with it some of the best semantic expertise out there. Toby Segaran is a brilliant dude. His O'Reilly book "Programming the Semantic Web" explains in 20 pages what most books take 150 pages to do: the concept of a URI based graph database and how it enables data to be merged from multiple sources and reasoned over with applications.

I only hope Google open-sources some of their research here for the rest of us.

j_baker3• 14 years ago

This is Google's search team we're talking about here. They might make the mistake of overestimating how much people will like something like this. They might make the mistake of underestimating how many resources something like this will take. However, they simply don't make mistakes of the kind you're talking about. I'd be willing to bet money that there's a bullet-proof theoretical model behind what they're doing. And they probably aren't ready to talk about it yet.

boyter• 14 years ago

I agree. This looks to me to just be Wikipedia presented next to the search term. Much the same as DuckDuckGo http://duckduckgo.com/?q=taj+mahal Congrats Gabriel, you got to them :)

I thought that while flawed cpedia (from one of the cuil founders) was a much more interesting push on this idea then Googles one currently is.

nextparadigms• 14 years ago

I think Google bought a company related to this technology 2-3 years ago. It's not like they saw Bing's Facebook integration last week and then decided to do this.

spot• 14 years ago

it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaweb

myko• 14 years ago

I'd say thank Metaweb as it seems to be building directly upon their ideas. I'm not sure how much Bing has pressured Google to innovate in the search space (though I think Bing has got Google thinking more about design).

riffraff2• 14 years ago

while I share your enthusiasm for the bright future ahead, there is a missing link between this and "book me a room in San Francisco with a view of the ocean", namely that data is behind closed doors.

There is a bunch of data that google can use[1] because it is made explicitly available. But many sources don't want that.

As an example, consider "book me flights for the cheapest route between lisbon and kiev". It is a trivial thing to do, provided you can get airline data.

But you can't scrape ryanair's website because they willingly put counter measures in place (e.g. captchas) so you cant do that.

[1] e.g. http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/

felipemnoa• 14 years ago

Once bots get smart enough there will be no captchas that can stop them. The only way will be to ban the IP where the bot is coming from, assuming you know which IP belongs to which bots. They could easily disguise themselves by using proxies.

I guess my point is that if we get to the point were a bot can do generic requests without the aid of a human a captchas will probably not be able to stop it.

lihaoyi• 14 years ago

Could the google bot take a captcha it finds and use it in one of it's own re-captchas? Essentially passing the burden of deciphering the text onto some unsuspecting human, it will be able to beat all captchas with ease!

DeepDuh• 14 years ago

"I'm on it, riffraff." "I've found the cheapest flight between lisbon and kiev. Booking is possible thru ryanair.com . I've filled in all necessary details for you, however there is a captcha I can't wrap my cpu around. Also, there are some privacy agreements I'm not authorized to make for you. Could you take over from here?"

Imagine an integrated Siri with those kind of capabilities. It doesn't have to be fully automatic. Letting a secretary do stuff also isn't fully automatic, (s)he's there to optimize your time into doing only the important decisions (sign on agreements, clicking confirm after having seen the price..).

tocomment• 14 years ago

Unless the hotel booking system has a captcha...

I always try to mention his when people get over excited a out the semantic web. Most of the important stuff that we would like to automate we also insist that a bot not be allowed to do it. It's pretty scitzo in my opinion.

barefoot2• 14 years ago

Presumably the booking would be done though an API.

moldbug• 14 years ago

I hope you enjoy your very pleasant, if initially surprising, stay in San Francisco, Cebu. Watch out for sea snakes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco,_Cebu

As someone who has done research in the field, did you read the Gizmodo review of Siri?

http://gizmodo.com/5864293/siri-is-apples-broken-promise

The set of "knowledge graph" problems which is not, in fact, AI-complete, strikes me as much smaller than most doing research in the field would like us to think.

I hope you won't try to argue that "book me a room" etc. isn't AI-complete. There's an uncanny valley there, and it's deep. You can use Siri for lots of trivial tasks in which bizarre failures are hilarious rather than disastrous, but booking hotel rooms isn't in that set. She can be the best secretary in the world 9 times out of 10 or even 99 out of a 100, but the other times she's an insane robot who wouldn't at all mind sending you to Cebu to get kidnapped by the MILF...

mikek2• 14 years ago

These are still early days. Siri is slow and inaccurate. However consider it a preview of things to come.

boxein3• 14 years ago

Actually Cyc is panned pretty hard as a complete waste of a perfectly intelligent researcher's time.

endtime• 14 years ago

>As someone who has done research in the field, I can tell you - this is the future of search, and the key to true AI.

Having done research in this field doesn't qualify you to have authoritative opinions on search or AI. I don't necessarily disagree with you on search, but I don't see why a dataset would be the key to AI. AI is a function, not a dataset.

agumonkey• 14 years ago

I wish people would integrate the punchline into programming languages.

nonameisfinetoo• 14 years ago

I know you guys usually get all hot and bothered over anything labelled innovative, but wasn't search good enough by 2002? Seriously, when is the last time you struggled to find something using google search?

ojbyrne• 14 years ago

Have you used google lately? Thanks to SEO, the answer to your second question is "about 5 minutes ago."

AznHisoka• 14 years ago

Please don't associate SEO with spam.

moultano• 14 years ago

If you have the query handy, I'd love to check it out to debug.

objclxt• 14 years ago

It keeps you on Google's site, and thus provides more exposure to their ads. Let's take the example Google give, a search for 'Matt Groening'. Without this, you'll need to click through the first result (a Wikipedia entry) to find out his date of birth. But with the Knowledge Graph that's right on the results page. You don't need to leave Google at all.

rryan• 14 years ago

Sorry, but how does a single search for Matt Groening keep you on Google more than a search for Matt Groening followed by a click on Wikipedia?

Also, I think these types of queries (people, places, things) rarely trigger ads. Based on the example queries from the post (Taj Mahal, Marie Curie, Matt Groening) there are no ads at all.

Wilya• 14 years ago

My Google searches actually fail very often. Outside of a few topics (programming and music, mainly), and excluding queries that lead me directly to Wikipedia, I'd say the success rate for "exploratory questions" (not "facebook home page") is around 50%. But since other search engines generally do worse, I can't say if the information doesn't exist, or if Google fails to find it.

Search felt good enough at some point. It no longer does, at least for me. I don't know if my expectations have become too high, or if search engines have become worse, though.

nostrademons2• 14 years ago

What sort of queries are failing for you? My e-mail address is in my profile - I'm doing some research (for Google) that's along the lines of "exploratory questions", and additional use cases obviously helps.

boxein3• 14 years ago

I get poor search results daily, and half of them get "incorrected". "Did you mean UIView?" No, Google, I am working on OSX. I actually did mean NSView, that's an actual thing.

john61• 14 years ago

How can Google answer that question now?:

Find all blogs of motorcycle journies 50 km nearby my current position.

pbw• 14 years ago

How does this impact site traffic? They are taking popular queries and providing the answer to them on a google.com hosted page. Does that mean less click-throughs to actual result pages? Does that bother anyone?

jonknee• 14 years ago

Since Google makes money on the ad clicks both on SERPs (AdWords) and content (AdSense) it's safe to assume they won't be answering everyone's questions.

loverobots2• 14 years ago

Google gets 100% of Google.com ad money vs 30% or so on Adsense. A major difference I'd say. Plus, some sectors are worth a lot more and you can bet Google is aware of that.

robryan• 14 years ago

I doubt google is making much off these terms anyway, your ROI would be pretty bad because there is no specific intent.

anon1385• 14 years ago

I note that none of those screenshots contain ads. Perhaps a Googler can enlighten us: do Google employees not get served ads? Or is the author of this blog just using adblock? Or are these images just fake mockups where they left out the ads to make them more aesthetically pleasing and clean looking for PR purposes?

Kylekramer• 14 years ago

I just did every search (Taj Mahal, Marie Curie, Matt Groening) they did on my unaltered Firefox/Windows 7 install while logged in, am certainly not a Google employee, and got no ads. Also didn't get the Knowledge Base yet, if that is a factor. Famous locations/people searches don't seem to be stuffed with ads typically. I'd imagine more research style searches having ads would be a bad experience for both the user and advertiser compared to stuff like "cheap flights" which does have an amazing clutter of ads. And of course, picking research style searches presents the idea better. Lack of ads is a nice bonus.

magicalist• 14 years ago

I think it depends on the topic. Searching for Matt Groening, like in the blog post, shows no ads for me.

jrockway2• 14 years ago

Google employees get ads. But these new panels do in fact cover them.

meastham• 14 years ago

Many results pages contain no ads. For instance, I just searched for both "Taj Mahal" and "Matt Groening" and received ads for neither query.

Tuna-Fish• 14 years ago

Google search ads are really not in the same business as most traditional advertising. Traditional advertising wants to create desire, and inform people. You take a lot of people and show then things they might be interested in, and hope some of them spend money. What Google search ads do is trafficking intent. Think queries like "cheap hotels in Florida", which clearly communicate that the customer is willing to spend money.

They find customers who want something specific, businesses who will sell them that, and make them meet. And then give the people who sell very good analytics that show exactly how much value they are getting, so they can bid up each other for the ads until Google captures almost all the value. During the housing boom, some mortgage-related keywords climbed into mid three figures. That is, each and every time someone searched the matching keywords and clicked on an ad, several hundred dollars changed hands.

archangel_one• 14 years ago

Yes, we still get ads. It wouldn't really be dogfooding if we didn't. I guess devs working in search could turn them off if they wanted, or as you say maybe they just have adblock installed :)

nodata• 14 years ago

I guess they remove the ads - there's no reason to give free ad views.

vibrunazo• 14 years ago

FYI, they're using an open API you can use at:

http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/Freebase_API

Now let's hope they'll also have an API for all the extra semantic info they collect with search.

lunchbox2• 14 years ago

"Things, not strings" does not seem like an effective tagline for marketing this to the public. Are non-programmers used to the term "string" in the sense of "text"? And even for those who are, I still think the tagline is too abstract. I would prefer something like "Understanding the concepts behind the words you search" (or "Understanding the things").

IMO the linked video does a better job at introducing the feature than the article.

kristianc• 14 years ago

From a marketing perspective, its probably a case of tailoring messages to audiences.

Non-programmers will likely not be poking around on Google's engineering blogs, and will pick up the Press Release that will have been pushed to the likes of CNN and the BBC.

lunchbox2• 14 years ago

> Non-programmers will likely not be poking around on Google's engineering blogs

This is the central "Official Google Blog", not an engineering blog. From the other articles on the blog (most of which are written by marketing and other non-engineering disciplines -- see the last lines), it's pretty clear that the intended audience is anyone who's interested in Google, not just programmers. I know lots of non-programmers who like to read these, especially since a lot of news sites link to and quote these articles.

j_baker3• 14 years ago

Personally, I would be more concerned with explaining the term "Knowledge Graph" than I would be concerned with explaining the term "string".

notatoad• 14 years ago

people who don't understand what a string is don't read blog posts like this. they'll see the extra info on the side in their search results and say "oh, that's cool", or "change is scary".

bdr• 14 years ago

"Marie Curie... had two children, one of whom also won a Nobel Prize, as well as a husband, Pierre Curie, who claimed a third Nobel Prize for the family."

Marie got two, one in physics and one in chemistry, the former jointly with Pierre. This is notable because it makes her one of the very few people to receive Nobels in multiple categories.

stevejohnson• 14 years ago

This reminds me of zero-click info from Duck Duck Go, but deeper. They're showing a summary-like view of information related to your search, but instead of being generated by a bunch of hand-curated rules, they come from more generalized machine learning algorithms. This is real competition for one of my favorite DDG features.

I see this as a positive example of search innovation and competition. More globally relevant information, not just a tighter filter bubble.

wololo2• 14 years ago

"I believe AI has an opportunity to achieve a true breakthrough over the coming decade by at last solving the problem of reading natural language text to extract its factual content. In fact, I hereby offer to bet anyone a lobster dinner that by 2015 we will have a computer program capable of automatically reading at least 80% of the factual content across the entire English-speaking web, and placing those facts in a structured knowledge base." --http://www.ai.rutgers.edu/aaai25/mitchell.htm

boxein3• 14 years ago

I saw an on-going project recently that was attempting just that. They were using texts from the web to infer relationships from recognizable patterns. Like (the head of X, Y) implies X is an organization, Y is a person, and Y is the leader of X.

It would also try to learn new patterns from facts it already knew, like if it notices Jobs and Apple in a sentence it can hypothesize that sentence pattern is about a leader of a company.

For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the project or even the university, hopefully someone else has heard of this.

wololo2• 14 years ago

Tom Mitchell was talking about his own research. NELL http://rtw.ml.cmu.edu/rtw/

jmount• 14 years ago

A piece of the embarrassment of a number of "Google killers" has been the claim to supply something better than search. It will be interesting to see how Google itself looks under the kind of scrutiny that sort of claim inevitably brings.

ljlolel• 14 years ago

This is just Wikipedia in-line in results...

SagelyGuru• 14 years ago

Relationships between facts are also facts. Having more facts enables you to do a slightly better job but I suspect that is all there is to it.

bashzor• 14 years ago

And that's where Wolfram Alpha became useless. It was just a matter of time after all.

dgudkov2• 14 years ago

Google has power to encourage site owners to make semantic markup for their pages which could lead to higher positions in search results for them. But Google doesn't do it. Why?

huggah• 14 years ago

Google does encourage marking up pages with Microdata, Microformats and RDFa. http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&... Google publishes tools to help with these. Additionally, better informing Google what your page contains leads to searches for your content being more likely to get to you.

dgudkov2• 14 years ago

Theoretically, yes. However, vast majority of site owners don't do it, even if they are interested in higher positions in SERP. There must be a reason for this.

mkramlich• 14 years ago

As someone with a brain, I was wondering probably at least as far back as a decade ago why Google wasn't already doing this. The twenty questions approach, in general, is a powerful and simple way to refine a human query in an interactive way.

andrejewski• 14 years ago

Google's own DuckDuckHack.

JabavuAdams• 14 years ago

How does this relate to OpenCyc?

barbazfoo12• 14 years ago

All due respect to Google, but I give primary credit for this to Danny Hillis. He was gathering and processing the data for this project years before going public with it and before merging with Google. It's yet another Google acquisition that is probably going to be viewed by many Google users as another amazing Google innovation.

"Standing on the shoulders of giants"

Do they still use that slogan?

Drbble2• 14 years ago

Google is more about "burying the giants in piles of money, and standing on that."

toksaitov• 14 years ago

Such a wonderful iPad… http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/search/knowledge...

ladino• 14 years ago

come on.. the magic is, they simply scrapped Wikipedia!!! :(

geluso• 14 years ago

Abandon social. Pursue this.

swah• 14 years ago

Sidenote: interesting how the guys in the video don't look directly at you, but do that lookaway thing, which I associate that with Apple videos ("we're launching this incredibly awesome piece of technology, now available to all of mankind enjoy, you're welcome").

Google, I expected them to look right at the camera and talk to me (for example, like Matt Cutts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhwPC-5Ub4).

ilaksh• 14 years ago

Cool. Maybe Google could acquire Novamente or Numenta next.

Things Not Strings -- Google Launches Knowledge Graph

Related Stories