Google claims to have built “a web of things” to help drive its new Knowledge Graph. From words to concepts and back? Just as third-party researchers are using Google’s search algorithm to find biomarkers that cure cancer, Google is claiming to have “found concepts.” What kind of concepts? Google’s Norvig explains, “We consider each individual Wikipedia article as representing a concept (an entity or an idea), identified by its URL.” So Google’s using a Wikipedia-derived Explicit Semantic Analysis to achieve Semantic Search. Novel.
Meanwhile, Bing is doing Social Search…using Facebook’s Social Graph. Great for seeing what shoes or hotels or articles your friends like…and other “niche knowledges.” Not so great outside your community’s niches, your communal “filter bubble.” (Google ‘s Knowledge Graph tackles the problem from the other direction: start with the most generic knowledge niches. If you’re not searching for Da Vinci, you might not get Knowledge Graph.)
Then there’s Apple getting sued over SIRI for “overstating the abilities of its virtual personal assistant.” Who’s not overstating these days? Apple’s ad teams have tailored a message that achieves the precise amount of ambiguity to maximize sex appeal and plausible deniability. The suits won’t stick.
Of course, everyone’s attempting to build brand loyalty so they can rake in dollars.
Deleuze & Guattari define philosophy as the creation of concepts. I marvel at Google (+Wikipedia), Bing (+Facebook), and SIRI. They are creating concepts–at least of a certain kind. When you search for Da Vinci on Knowledge Graph and it groups renaissance painters together, this appears as abstraction, generalization. When you search SIRI for Indian Food and she finds restaurants in your area, this is a form of pragmatic localization. When you search Bing for fashion, and it tells you what your friends are wearing, it’s creating concepts in the space of social awareness.
Intelligence is metaphor all the way down. All the services described above metaphorize in some nascent fashion. Lakoff and Johnson summarize: “the essence of metaphor is understanding andexperiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” General AI can be achieved by building out multi-dimensional metaphorizing algorithms.
Interestingly, SIRI, Google and Bing each assume a specific want (desire) in the user, and tailor their service accordingly. SIRI assumes you don’t want abstract knowledge about the history or characteristics of Indian Food, but that you want to eat some, nearby, soon. Google assumes you want general knowledge of Renaissance painters or other search topics. Bing assumes you want to know what your friends and acquaintances think.
What if what you wantis general AI? To achieve AI, concepts need semi-permeable membranes between them. From Turner & Fauconnier’s “Conceptual Blending” to Ridley’s When Ideas Have Sex, ideas need room to breed. As a first step in the right direction, I envision service that understands and generates metaphor. At first, I want it to be capable of understanding why and when it might be apt to say “Juliet is the sun,” “Man is a wolf to man,” or “You made your bed, now lie in it.” For this, we need a Pragmatic Ontology, a subtle notion of what makes daily human actions meaningful. Step two involves metaphorically extending the algorithms necessary for the first form of metaphorizing…finally achieving, for instance, an understanding of how identification with the hero of a story is a form of metaphor, how the move from string to a thing is metaphor, how the metaphorical process is ubiquitous. That’s what I want to see built.
Afterward, I’ll be satisfied enough to navigate to a local Indian restaurant to contemplate Donatello’s brushwork like my friends do.
 Metaphors We Live By (1980), 5.