Hi, Louise:
DEVONtechnologies has no plans at this time to disclose the proprietary techniques used in the AI features, nor do we agree with Goranson either that this is any ground to ‘mistrust’ the results because the methods are not disclosed, or that most users would benefit with tinkering with them. (We do agree, however, that Goranson’s columns are outstanding.)
AI features such as See Also are unique to DEVONthink/DEVONthink Pro and we believe they can be of considerable use to many users.
Whenever I have discussed the AI features, including See Also, I have always noted that it remains the user’s responsibility to decide whether or not the suggested related documents or concepts are indeed useful. In this sense, I always approach DT Pro’s suggested relationships with a certain degree of skepticism or ‘mistrust’, for reasons that could not be mitigated by access to the tinkering methods Goranson proposes.
Example: I’m looking at a document concerning the biological processes in a wetland environment, with a focus on how those processes affect the mobility and toxicity of arsenic. In my database, when I press See Also, DT Pro promptly suggests a number of other documents that may be related. Some of those suggestions are about the metabolic processes of bacteria that result in conversion of arsenic from one chemical state to another. Good! Some of them are about relative rates of uptake of the different chemical states of arsenic in the food chain by various organisms. Good – that could lead me to still other sources of interesting information if I follow that trail. One of them is about problems in sampling and analyzing contaminants in soils and sediments. Hmm – I may not follow that trail today, but might come back to it later. Another suggested paper is mostly about phosphate levels in wetlands. Could that be related? Maybe, it might even turn out to be important. But I’ll skip it today. And some other suggestions I reject as not very relevant or interesting at the moment. Of 86 suggestions for the first document, i’ve picked 8 as worth looking at closely, and I’ll repeat the process of See Also on three or four of those to see where they lead me.
Conclusion about the utility of AI: DT Pro was really useful in helping me peruse the contents of my large database to find some information that I’m investigating right now. But I’m responsible for understanding the literature. I’m a chemist, i’ve done research in biochemistry and microbiology and i’ve done investigations of pollution problems in wetlands and the associated food chains. DT Pro doesn’t “know” anything at all about those disciplines. DT Pro is, however, “looking” at the contextual relationships of words in my database, and it does that far faster and more comprehensively that I could. So we have an interactive relationship, DT Pro and I. DT Pro makes suggestions based merely on its analysis of word associations, and I evaluate those suggestions to see if they are useful to me. Some are, some are not. But it’s my responsibility to understand the material – DT Pro doesn’t “understand” anything.
If I were doing something like analysis of word frequency usage in the works of William Shakespear perhaps it might seem useful to ‘tweak’ the Ai methodologies in DT Pro. (Remember, though, that the Concordance automatically does that word frequency listing.)
But the built-in AI for See Also works quite well for generalized use in large reference databases, and I doubt that knowledge of how it works, or the ability to tweak it, would really improve its utility (except for essentially trivial matters). DT Pro will sometimes make brilliant suggestions, and often make dumb suggestions. It’s the user’s responsibility to distinguish brilliant from dumb. In short, user knowledge about the topic under investigation is what’s really important.