I recently finished writing a three part series for Law Technology News (free registration) surveying Web 2.0 resources for lawyers. Web 2.0, after all, is so yesterday, as Justin Patten notes today at his blog Human Law. Emerging to take its place is Web 3.0, fueled by a growing collection of Silicon Valley start-ups. As The New York Times reports:
“Their goal is to add a layer of meaning on top of the existing Web that would make it less of a catalog and more of a guide — and even provide the foundation for systems that can reason in a human fashion. That level of artificial intelligence, with machines doing the thinking instead of simply following commands, has eluded researchers for more than half a century.”
One Web 3.0 artificial-intelligence system named Cyc is already capable of answering sophisticated, natural-language questions such as, “Which American city would be most vulnerable to an anthrax attack during summer?” If that is the case, might Web 3.0 deliver AI applications to answer simple legal queries? I don’t know the answer to that question, but Cyc might.
Comment (by m. hedayat)
i’ve bookmarked your articles for weeks and will read them one day. in the meantime the weekly Rojo meme observed:
… Rough Type declared Web 2.0 sooo over following a dull Web 2.0 Summit last week.
[ed. note: tried to drum up a sponsor to send me — no luck. back to the meme]
Why? Maybe the $3,000 price tag kept out everyone but those who were preaching to the converted, blogs Mark Evans … over at The Times John Markoff anointed Web 3.0 as the Next Next Big Thing. More like Psychobabble 3.0 blogs /Message, snarking that Markoff talking about it makes people talk about it. Scobleizer blogs that in 50 interviews in the past three months no one ever mentioned Web 3.0. Looks like the Times is just mentioning a trend in case one emerges. All this leads Ross Mayfield to say that if Web 2.0 is a bubble, Web 3.0 will just be a disaster. After all, Web 2.0 isn’t even a buzzword yet in the real world, as Blog Herald found out.
kind of says it all, no?