Slashdot Mirror
Bing To Use Wolfram Alpha Results
angry tapir writes "Microsoft is rolling out some enhancements to its Bing search engine, including some that rely on computational information delivered by Wolfram Alpha. That means that people will be able to search for some complicated information, and the search engine will be able to compute the answers. In a blog post, Tracey Yao, program manager, and Pedro Silva, product manager at Microsoft, give some examples."
brb, dividing by zero on bing
Anybody want my mod points?
Been using Wolfram-enhanced search already - and without the b*** crap.
What else ya got...
A clock has at least two hands depicting the hour and minute of the day. If stopped, it would appear that the clock is useless, but twice a day the clock tells the current time perfectly. What matters most is that you look at the clock at precisely those two moments to tell the time. Otherwise the tool just doesn't work as you'd expect it.
So when you take two tools that aren't very good, sometimes you end up with something that might be useful. But then again, just because you have two hands doesn't mean you're going to end up doing something useful. One hand could be occupied or paralyzed or otherwise out of commission. The other hand could be gimpy or not your favored hand or even cut off entirely if you lived in Saudi Arabia.
What I'm trying to say here is simply what you all are already thinking. Who is actually using Bing? Furthermore, who is actually using Alpha? These two useless hands working together just makes it easier to forget them both altogether.
So far I haven't been terribly impressed with Wolfram Alpha.
For example, searching for the price of oil in non-US dollars results in a US dollar timeline multiplied by the CURRENT exchange rate of that foreign currency, not in the historical timeline. It's like Alpha is having a stab at an answer, but isn't smart enough to know when it's answering the question wrong.
It will be interesting how Bing presents Wolfram Alpha and whether it removes the inherent design flaws in it. There is an insightful but long article about the problems here - wolfram alpha and hubristic user interfaces. Two good quotes from which are:
Hype also generates funding because it generates exaggerated sales projections. For instance:
"What Wolfram Alpha will do," Wolfram says, "is let people make use of the achievements of science and engineering on an everyday basis, much as the Web and search engines have let billions of people become reference librarians, so to speak."
[...]
It could do things the average person might want (such as generating customized nutrition labels) as well as things only geeks would care about (such as generating truth tables for Boolean algebraic equations).
Generating customized nutrition labels! The average person! I just laughed so hard, I needed a complete change of clothing.
Dr. Wolfram, may I mention a word to you? That word is MySpace. If there is any such person as this average person, she has a MySpace account. Does she generate customized nutrition labels? On a regular basis, or just occasionally? In what other similar activities does she engage - monitoring the population of Burma? Graphing the lifecycle of stars? Charting Korean copper consumption since the 1960s? Perhaps you should feed MySpace into your giant electronic brain, and see what comes out.
and
Google is not a control interface; WA is. When you use WA, you know which of these tools you wish to select. You know that when you type "two cups of flour and two eggs" (which now works) you are looking for a Nutrition Facts label. It is only Stephen Wolfram's giant electronic brain which has to run ten million lines of code to figure this out. Inside your own brain, it is written on glowing letters across your forehead.
So the giant electronic brain is doing an enormous amount of work to discern information which the user knows and can enter easily: which tool she wants to use.
When the giant electronic brain succeeds in this task, it has saved the user from having to manually select and indicate her actual data-visualization application of choice. This has perhaps saved her some time. How much? Um, not very much.
When the giant electronic brain fails in this task, you type in Grandma's fried-chicken recipe and get a beautiful 3-D animation of a bird-flu epidemic. (Or, more likely, "Wolfram Alpha wasn't sure what to do with your input." Thanks, Wolfram Alpha!) How do you get from this to your Nutrition Facts? Rearrange some words, try again, bang your head on the desk, give up. What we're looking at here is a classic, old-school, big steaming lump of UI catastrophe. ....
The task of "guess the application I want to use" is actually not even in the domain of artificial intelligence. AI is normally defined by the human standard. To work properly as a control interface, Wolfram's guessing algorithm actually requires divine intelligence. It is not sufficient for it to just think. It must actually read the user's mind. God can do this, but software can't.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
While this is interesting and possibly useful, it seems to me there's nothing stopping Google from turning around and doing the exact same thing. Wolfram is unaffiliated with either party as far as I know and certainly wouldn't mind getting exposure on the bigger of the two search engines as well.
And hey, I already do multiplication and find constants in my Google search box, it might be nice to do integrals and whatnot as well! In the meantime, if I have a specific enough question I'll just go directly to Wolfram's site to ask.
i think it's a valid question. netscape went from total market domination to nothing in a few years. granted MS pulled from under handed moves to make it happen that would be a LOT harder to do this time around, the scene is set the same. google innovates and takes market by storm, MS puts out a few non starters, eventually refines it's product to take the lead.
1. Netscape wasn't a public company as well run as Google is today.
2. Underhanded moves can be pulled by anyone, and Google is as smart as if not smarter than MSFT, which still has a lot of old blood from the 80s running the show.
3. Microsoft could also end up trying all the time to play catch up to Google, just like how Linux Desktop is touted as always(not my opinion) playing catch up to Windows or how Windows plays catch up to OSX and still ends up shabby or how Mono plays catch up to Microsoft C#.
The whole bing(TM) backronym of Bing Is Not Google, can also mean that it can never be as good as Google.
Microsoft's latest rebranding of their failed search engine has lower marketshare now than when it was released.
It has lower marketshare than last year before it was rebranded with the new stupid 'bing' name.
Microsoft is so desperate they are resorting to paying the distant second place search engine Yahoo to use Microsoft's own last place search engine.
"eventually refines it's product to take the lead."
Yeah, that's the story you want to believe. Too bad Reality is fucking it up.
Bing to use google results!
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
For very narrow queries, where you already know ahead of time Wulfram Alpha supports it, you can get useful structured information out of it. For example, if you look up a first name or surname, you can get information on popularity and geographic distribution and such. But the only time I've ever gotten useful information like that is when I already knew that it supported a particular kind of query. That's less like a search engine, and more like just querying a database. There have always been special-purpose databases on the internet where you can look up specific information, once you know that such a database exists for a particular kind of fact. What Alpha utterly fails to do is answer any useful proportion of queries without already knowing in advance exactly what you need to query and what syntax to use when doing so.
And yes, I've seen Wulfram's talks on it, and they're crap. He presented via videoconference at IJCAI IJCAI 2009, which he only got into because of the hype (sure, it's blind review, but it's hard to have blind review of a Wulfram Alpha paper that identifies itself as such in the paper), and there was no technical information at all, nor AI advances that weren't already done by like the 1960s (the AI advance in question is "querying a database").
Maybe Bing has something up their sleeve, but I'd bet on it being more hype.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So Microsoft wants to compute 2^2^2^2^2 because Google can only do 2^2^2^2? Yeah right, that will help them get more users.
...Wolfie needs Mula.
Table-ized A.I.
Wolfram Alpha is well known to badly guess what you are trying to do, and has plenty of graphs and charts. Now add a liberal amount of Microsoft flavoring to it, and you have a cross between Clippy and a really bad PowerPoint presentation... let's hope Microsoft never tries to help "improve" WA.
My webcomic
How can the suckiness of Microsoft be reversed? It said:
THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER
This wolfram thing might be working out after all.
THL phish sticks
In that the current google search is so good for the majority of users, that they are trying to grab at a few disatisfied straws. I can't really think of a way google search fails me, but perhaps if the results were presented a different way, I could see the clear-cut differences and improvements.
I think text search is pretty much there. The one thing I would appreciate is a better image search, and not relying on text of the image name, but being able to describe it, or sketch a rough outline, and for a search engine to recognize the content to some degree.
LOL. I'll bet a dollar that this is more or less how the two go about creating a new standard in hype engines.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Why are you so hard on W|A? Wolfram Alpha answers LOTS of extremely important questions!
Query: What is the speed of an unladen swallow?
Answer: "there is unfortunately insufficient data to estimate the velocity of an African swallow (even if you specified which of the 47 species of swallow found in Africa you meant)"
Query: What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?
Answer: 42
Query: Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?
Answer: Not sure, but wherever she is, it isn't here.
Query: When is judgement day?
Answer: "2:14 am EDT | Friday, August 29, 1997"
Query: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound??
Answer: "No. Sound is vibration, transmitted to our senses through the mechanism of the ear, and recognized as sound only at our nerve centers. The falling of the tree or any other disturbance will produce vibration of the air. If there be no ears to hear, there will be no sound."
Query: Can entropy be reversed?
Answer: "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
Query: who would win in a fight: pirates or ninjas?
Answer: "The answer remains an ongoing debate which Wolfram|Alpha is not in a position to arbitrate."
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
Dir? just redid the Google one, and it said 65536. Also did you not notice that 65535 is odd, in other words not divisible by 2. Therefore reading fail?
this could be deliberate, but it's hard to see how a publicly traded company wouldn't pursue other forms of revenue if they could.
the major thing google has in their favour, is that MS has no legal way to block people out of using google, and google has the legal might to defend themselfs against any attack MS might think of launching. So MS is on the unfamilar territory of having to innovate their way out of a corner, just don't make the mistake of thinking MS can't do it...
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
They add parenthesis in opposite fashion, so they are both right. I don't know which one I would consider more intuitive.
bing: 2^2 = 4 ^ 2 = 16 ^ 2= 256 ^ 2 = 65536
google: 2^2 = 4. 2 ^ (2 ^ 2) = 2 ^ 4 = 16. 2 ^ (2 ^ ( 2 ^ 2)) = 2 ^ (16) = 65536
Google is correct, because it actually evaluates the expression properly. Bing just parses it left to right.
Google: 2^2^2^2 = 2^(2^(2^2)) = 65,536
Bing: 2^2^2^2 = ((2^2)^2)^2 = 256
Clearly, bing doesn't understand basic math.
Forget world peace, bring on -1 pointless
So what? Google only makes money from advertising, MS only makes money from softwarel licensing. I see no reason to think eaither revenue stream is going to disappear in a hurry.
How long will it take Microsoft to try to patent complex computational searches?
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
What can a search engine possibly compute anything other than the ridiculous 2^2^2^2...?
Who would type that question to a search engine anyway? No, no, Microsoft is confused, you use Mathematica 7.0 for that kind of computation.
The best today's idiotic search engines could possibly hope to do is to add/subtract some numbers, provide unit/currency conversions and that's all. Google is already doing all that.
Unless Bing servers are some clever cousins of HAL, adding some funky math skills to them won't do a bit of a difference. It's a loooong shot before the search engine actually gathers unrelated information and connects it to the actual query, doing some useful computation in between.
Sorry Microsoft, this doesn't fly.
There's plenty of room at the bottom! Richard P. Feynmann
I now use Bing for at least 50% of my searches, and more than that if I am looking for images. The potential problem Google has is that is incredibly easy to use another search engine. It's more difficult to switch an OS. I will be the first to admit that Bing is as good as it is, given the previous attempts Microsoft made.
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
Bing may incorporate some Wolfram Alpha functionality - but if you "search the web" from Wolfram Alpha's website, it sends you to Google.
#DeleteChrome
Wolfram Alpha is an interesting research concept but really not a product thats even remotely ready for daily use. There are some areas where online search could be improved and where Microsoft could be better than others. For example, why not create an error message / log message search function ? That alone would drive people to Bing in droves.
Microsoft should stop and think about what information they have themselves thats interesting and how they can index it for easy use. Right now their own support sites are a total nightmare because of their utter crap of a search function.
HTTP/1.1 400
Its interesting, I'll give it that much.
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
We've combined Bing and Alpha and you get: Bleh!
How many roads must a man go down before he becomes a man?
If I glance around the vast undergrad computer labs at my university, it's fair to say the majority of people use Wolfram Alpha in some form. It's a very powerful tool to augment our normal calculators, especially if you need to do conversion between SI and other units, or if you need some value that doesn't come to hand quickly (e.g. atmospheric pressure at 1254 metres, density of some fluid, etc.). It's also very helpful for checking your equations as Alpha reformats in an intuitive manner so that something like ((43+(58/8)*84)^2)/(78848)^(1/2) looks much nicer and is easier to check if something is wrong.
I would have thought that the Bing result was right, since expressions of the same level are normally done from left to right. But I did a little reading and your right!
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
I can do maths, Me ;-)
Some guy wanted to mod you interesting but he accidentally scrolled down by a few before clicking (something I've done multiple times when modding - yes, the interface sucks)
That's kind of the whole point. This isn't a show-stopper, it's a show-starter. It's going to force similar innovation from Google, which means that everyone wins.
MS puts out a few non starters, eventually refines it's product to take the lead.
Not if it keeps up its current marketing incompetence. I've been amazed at how stupid their approach has been with their obnoxious pop-up search windows.
They've turned a whole bunch of 3rd-party websites into minefields, where you don't dare move your mouse cursor. If you're unlucky enough to hover over one of their stupid "links" that's put on every 10th common English word, then they evade popup blockers and slap in a huge irrelevant window topped with bing that covers up exactly what you're trying to read.
The result is that the user is repeatedly infuriated. What's worse, at exactly each time he is angered, he is shown the "bing" trademark, which reinforces the association in his mind between bing and idiocy.
Microsoft still doesn't understand the Internet or what its users want. Google has nothing to worry about yet.
It seems that Bing is copying BASIC behavior (which has always been left-to-right for all operators of the same precedence, including ^).
netscape went from total market domination to nothing in a few years. granted MS pulled from under handed moves to make it happen
I remember buying Microsoft's Internet Starter Kit in 1996.
It came with a handsome paperback book and a useful bundle of software, and sold directly for about $10-20.
Bundling IE with AOL was another smart move. Integrating a look-alike - work-alike - e-mail client and a browser into the Windows consumer product was a logical progression that made perfect sense to the user.
As if Bing users had the brains to even spell "math" correctly. Because if they had the brains, they wouldn't use Bing in the first place. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I already get Wolfram Alpha results in my Google searches with the "Wolfram Alpha Google" add-on. Plus, no ads...