Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Acquires and Will Free Up Science Search Engine Meta (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cross-reference dept.

tomhath quotes a report from TechCrunch: Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan's $45 billion philanthropy organization is making its first acquisition in order to make it easier for scientists to search, read and tie together more than 26 million science research papers. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is acquiring Meta, an AI-powered research search engine startup, and will make its tool free to all in a few months after enhancing the product. Meta's AI recognizes authors and citations between papers so it can surface the most important research instead of just what has the best SEO. It also provides free full-text access to 18,000 journals and literature sources. Meta co-founder and CEO Sam Molyneux writes that "Going forward, our intent is not to profit from Meta's data and capabilities; instead we aim to ensure they get to those who need them most, across sectors and as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the world."

5 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why don't they create textbooks by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember, Da Zuck's "Charitable Foundation" isn't a charitable foundation. The first reports about it, were, quite poignantly, fake news. What he has created, is in fact an financial investment entity that allows him to play around with his fortune, while avoiding taxes.

    So there is really no incentive to just give money away. He's letting researchers use the technology to drive its development. In a few years Da Zuck hopes to be charging for this service, and make money off this investment.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  2. Wrong target by Doub · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They should buy Elsevier, make it a non-profit, and republish their entire present and future portfolio online with free access for everyone.

    1. Re:Wrong target by netjiro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Elsevier (RELX) costs around $30B total, so perhaps not. Better would be to very publicly and repeatedly proclaim that the era of closed scientific publications is over, then over a decade or so push down the value until controlling stake can be had for peanuts (relative). After that they can put it all public unless someone else has taken the step in the mean time.

  3. Great, but I wonder what the catch is? by hughbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    As an old Brit, I admire many of our Victorian philanthropists, some in this list for example: http://londonist.com/2011/10/t... who did a great deal of good.

    However the modern version always seems to have some catch, supporting stock prices or products, acquiring (more) big data etc. I'm waiting for simple altruism to come back into fashion. I'll certainly be dead before that, though. All these folks could go down about about $50m and live pretty comfortably too.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  4. Re:Why don't they create textbooks by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    After the recent story about Zuck suing Hawaiians to force them to give up their ancestral land, it's really hard for me to see him as anything other than a complete dickhead.