bits and bikes

Compute, commute. Rinse and repeat.

Learning networks are about social search

February 7th, 2010 · by Ari · 2 Comments

Damon Horowitz and Sepandar Kamvar recently published a paper — referentially entitled “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Social Search Engine” (PDF) — in which they nicely lay out the social search problem and the Aardvark solution. As I was reading this paper, one thought kept surfacing: Learning networks are about social search.

It seems reasonable to claim that since Q&A is about learning, Aardvark’s network-based Q&A site can be described as a type of learning network. The less obvious but, in my opinion, more interesting claim is that the design of learning networks can (and should!) be viewed as a social search problem. Illich argued this, Meetup demonstrates it quite nicely, and Grockit is moving in that direction, too. In an email exchange published last year, I suggested that the future of AI in Education will have a lot to do with social search:

I think the AIED systems of the future will be less about teaching directly, and more about providing guidance: when and how a student would benefit from working with someone else (perhaps a teacher, tutor, or peer.) When I get stuck solving a particular type of problem, who (that’s online and available) can best help me understand it? A good system will have predicted the frustrating challenge, and will have already lined up the person best-suited to explaining it to me in a way that I will understand. After I’ve demonstrated that I mastered the necessary skills, who can I then explain it to, both to help them and to clarify it for myself? A good system will be able to seamlessly coordinate this process. Through these interactions, the system will unobtrusively be learning more about me — both as a learner and as a peer-tutor — in order to improve with time.

Downright Aardvarkian.

Tags: Bits · Books · educational technology · featured · research computing


2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 ari // Feb 8, 2010 at 11:02 pm

    One other observation:

    Social search is human computation. While I’m having trouble pinning down the reference right now, I’m fairly certain that I’ve seen or heard Luis von Ahn describe human computation as a technique by which an AI-hard problem can be reduced to an HCI problem. After reading this paper, I think it’s fair to say that Aardvark is an attempt at doing exactly that. The piece that I’m not understanding is the why: Why bother responding to a question? Most HC applications that I’ve read about seem to offer something compelling to the human in exchange for their computation: cash money (MTurk), fun (gwap), porn (pornornot), not getting your form submission rejected yet again (recaptcha). So what is the compelling motivator with Aardvark? Perhaps it’s something more subtle: to show others what you know, to help a friend of a friend, or to voice an opinion (even if just to an audience of one). If you have thoughts on this, please share.

  • 2 ari // Feb 12, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    and… sold.

Leave a Comment