Thanks! I’m all for very-high-quality human-legible knowledge-graph / world-models, created by whatever means. If people know how to make such things algorithmically, so much the better.
I am, however, confused about how an algorithmically-generated knowledge-graph would wind up with clear unambiguous human-legible labels on the nodes. Those labels are really the key ingredient. If they can be auto-generated, then I’m pleasantly surprised. I was assuming we’d need a human to write the hundreds of thousands of labels (e.g. “friend-in-the-Quaker-sense”)
I was assuming we’d need a human to write the hundreds of thousands of labels (e.g. “friend-in-the-Quaker-sense”)
As always, “Sampling can show the presence of knowledge but not its absence.” Self-distillation is witchcraft—I don’t blame people, even here, who I have to remind that it is in fact a thing. Works for a lot of stuff, whether it’s playing Starcraft or translating French or solving math or generating knowledge graphs...
Thanks! I’m all for very-high-quality human-legible knowledge-graph / world-models, created by whatever means. If people know how to make such things algorithmically, so much the better.
I am, however, confused about how an algorithmically-generated knowledge-graph would wind up with clear unambiguous human-legible labels on the nodes. Those labels are really the key ingredient. If they can be auto-generated, then I’m pleasantly surprised. I was assuming we’d need a human to write the hundreds of thousands of labels (e.g. “friend-in-the-Quaker-sense”)
As always, “Sampling can show the presence of knowledge but not its absence.” Self-distillation is witchcraft—I don’t blame people, even here, who I have to remind that it is in fact a thing. Works for a lot of stuff, whether it’s playing Starcraft or translating French or solving math or generating knowledge graphs...