Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly to Internet

Re:Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly t... by dekhn on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @02:49PM (#11292039)

I don't just mean that, although that is part of the goal.

I want AIs to automatically find conflicting papers/hypotheses, and propose experiments that resolve the ambiguities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly t... by hutzlibu on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @04:55PM (#11292910)

But wouldn't a different data structure/database be better suited for this approach, than LaTeX? I mean, you can still just babble but style it in LaTeX ... and the AI would have to find out, that your're saying nothing. This would require true AI.

I mean, I don't know much about LaTeX, but I doubt there are Elements for "Hypthese", "Definition", "exact reference" etc. If you would have those, described in a structured, simple language - then I guess, it will be much easier to process those Information for a KI, when the context is clear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly t... by dekhn on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @05:22PM (#11293116)

True. I work at Google now, and my advice would be to just write standard XHTML and let Google's parsers do their best job at inferring the meaning of the text.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Handful of Biologists Went Rogue and Published Directly t... by hutzlibu on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @06:07PM (#11293393)

But writing xhtml in plain text can be quite a pain ... you would need at least good tools, to be efficient ...

Or something pythonlike (also supported by a IDE):

hypothesis:

(indent) blablabla link:"link_to_Element_in_paper"

[ Parent | on HN ]