Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by slx26 1754 days ago
This is basically the problem of organizing knowledge and setting up rules to easily interface with it through computational systems. There was an interesting article that discussed the topic some time ago, but can't find it right now.

Neither hierarchical organization nor tags nor databases work. You need a mix of everything, and you need to make it nice enough for the user to be able to select the best option at the right time. Think about how you think and access memories. There are a ton of ways you do it, not only hierarchically or "table-based".

This could also be likened to the problem of categorization that meta-rationalists like to talk about so much. Basically, that (at least in human terms) no categorization works under all possible contexts.

We are not gods, so it should be obvious that there's no possible organization of knowledge that makes it all perfectly available. It can't be frictionless, instantaneous and complete at the same time. Then, it should be obvious that if we want to make access to information as effective as possible, multiple methods need to be combined.

In fact, a lot of the technology that has been most "revolutionary", has been technology that improved the way we access certain types of information. Graphical interfaces, databases, spreadsheets, hyperlinks, google search, etc. We have also used calendars, lists, schedules, diagrams, button panels, etc., long before computers were a reality.

There are still a few steps left. As we attempt to tackle even more and more complex systems, we are pushed to look for new ways to manage all that.

1 comments

I've never heard of that meta-rational problem before. What is it called? I'd like to read up on potential solutions to it
Sorry, didn't see your reply earlier. Don't have much time to explain, but for context, you probably want to read "a first lesson in meta-rationality" [0]. It doesn't talk much about categorization directly, but it broadly discusses the limits of rationalism, and starts to explore the "solutions" / alternative perspectives (that the author decided to label as "meta-rationalism"). The categorization problem is one of the points where you can see the "limits" of rationalism. It's never discussed to much or too explicitly in these terms, though. I advice you to read the whole thing attentively, and when you are done, go back to review the section on nebulosity, and specially this quote:

>> One has to be able to “bend” concepts, when it is appropriate. Nothing should be absolutely rigid. On the other hand, things shouldn’t be so wishy-washy that nothing has any meaning at all, either. The trick is knowing when and how to slip one concept into another.

And reflect again at this point about what you have read:

>> The point of these examples is that what counts as an “object” depends on the context.

...while thinking explicitly about the categorization problem. In computer science and AI, in particular, this problem might appear even more clearly, specially in symbolic AI. If you try to create a symbolic AI system, or if you are an experienced programmer and have a solid grasp of the limitations of abstraction, it all floats around this main issue of nebulosity / categorization / methodology in rationalism. You might also be reminded of the aphorism "all models are wrong".

Hope this gives you a starting point to keep exploring more deeply if you want to.

[0] https://metarationality.com/bongard-meta-rationality