Under the sea

I really responded well to Lanier's extended example of cephalopods as a contrast to our own technological neoteny. Part of this is because I really, really, REALLY like oceanography and aquatic invertebrates, but I also enjoy how he turned the idea of morphing into a natural occurence to explain our own fascination with it, then began to explore the concept further. His idea that we could create a system of communication that involves becoming the symbols of meaning rather than expressing them through sound is a very interesting one to anyone who has studied semiotics, as I believe many people reading this blog have. I have heard it argued that much of sign language is in fact a better and more direct way to communicate than speaking words aloud. It is possible that animals such as cuttlefish do in fact have a semiotic system in place already using morphs and symbols; some species are said to have intelligence higher than crows (who are pretty bright).

The idea that we could integrate a whole new system of communication into virtual reality is something that I had never considered before. I had assumed that we would communicate in such a space much as we did in our current space, with the added benefit of being able to send text messages or restrict messages to private. Being able to communicate with our own shapes beyond using body language is a very deep idea. Would there be limits? How could we be sure that the system was interpreting our desires correctly? So many possibilities have opened up with this idea.

Smell-o-net!

Okay, so this is riffing pretty far off any of Lanier's points, but the idea excites me. The idea that computers could break down smells into some kind of basic pattern that could then be reproduced at will by some piece of hardware is tantalizing. I spend way too much time watching cooking shows. I love food. I would really like the added immersion that another sense would bring for such an experience. I think that it would have to be a voluntary addition, and they had better make it pretty hack-resistant, as I would not want to have my smell-printer or whatever it will be called dropping smelly farts into my desk area.

I do think that adding another sense option to our internet consumption habits will happen sooner or later. Smell is the most likely in my opinion, since it makes sense that a few oils would be able to be mixed otgether in various combinations to create a variety of scents, just like a few basic colours are present in an ink catridge to allow us to print pictures accurately. The technology would probably have to start of slow and then pick up. Really, it just needs a killer app, just like every other piece of new hardware before it.


Know what that killer app would be?


BACON.

A quest for thinking

Well, it took a bit, but Lanier finally brought up something from the internet's early days that I agree should be brought back. His description of ThinkQuest as a replacement for the spot that Wikipedia holds on the internet is a great one. I think that the transition would have to be slow, with the established judges for each topic considering the merits of the pre-existing Wikipedia pages. This would make it expensive, but could be made cheaper by appealing to academics in the name of having possibly greatest research tool in the history of mankind actually be acceptable as a source. Since this part alone would take years, there would need to be even more judges ready to examine incoming submissions of new topics or revisions. I think that timed deadlines for new submissions of articles would also be a good idea, as that would allow judges to only be needed for a certain amount of time, barring major occurences happening that would require immediate updates. There should therefore be a panel of general judges ready at all times for these emergency updates that could be reviewed further once the situation had been adressed.

Basically, my main drive behind this is to address the legitimacy of the most widely available information resource. Having it reviewed by experts to determine the authenticity of the information while also creating competition for the information to be presented in the best way would be immensely helpful to the world at large.

One further revision that I would like to see would be a few levels of the site for different education levels. Let younger kids have access to some topics discussed at their level which they can, with a parent's help, advance to a higher level if they find the information too basic for them. This would allow for children that may not be able to learn something due to an unfortunate situation being able to learn about an area that they are interested in.

SongLOLS

Really, Lanier? 'Songles'? I consider myself pretty...techy. I read message boards. I blog. I have experimented with Linux. I heart open-source. And you know what I have learned while reading about many of these interests? People freaking hate dongles. They do. A lot. They get lost, they break, you never have them with you when you need them. Try introducing a fancy new gadget at some big trade event and telling the crowd that an important port will require a dongle. Even Apple fans get pissed about Steve Jobs telling them that they will need a dongle. Yet a 'songle' is your idea on how to return the music industry to it's glory days? Tying individual songs to a physical object? One of the reasons that digital music took off so much (aside from the whole ' you can download it for free' thing), was that people generally disliked the physical clutter created by a large music collection. That was when 12-15 songs were on one physical object. Imagine how well having so many coffee cups, or wristbands, or whatever else Lanier suggested would go over.

So let's say I really want to buy a new song. Sure, says Lanier, buy this cup, it is the key to your song, and you can also enjoy delicious beverages in it! But wait, says I. I already have many cups. I overfloweth with cups. I do not want another. I do want that song. Now what? Are record labels supposed to provide a vast range of songles to ensure that my needs as a consumer are being met? Not only will these songles consume extra material, which isn't enviromentally friendly, there will need to be huge stores to sell these things. Not very efficient. At all.

Digital Trees, Digital Dollars

In chapter 4 of his book, Lanier seems to be convinced that eventually, creative people will have to give away all of their work online for free, which he terms 'donating it to the hivemind.' I really disagree with the concept of that happening. Yes, it does seem that this is the way that many people want creative content to be, as pirating music, movies, and other content has not really slowed down since it first became widespread through Napster and other P2P programs. This does not necessarily mean that the future is so bleak for content producers. Governments have been cracking down on sites that provide pirated material, while media companies are beginning to understand better ways to provide content digitally. The most successful model, in my eyes, has been the subscription model. Giving nearly unlimited access to a variety of media means that consumers will not turn to piracy to fill in gaps in their media collection, which is often the justification of piracy. Some issues that stand in the way of this idea include international copyright laws that often prevent subscription services from offering global products and every individual media company/label wanting to create their own service so that they can receive a greater portion of the profits.

In Lanier's third chapter, he delves into how the idea of a person in a web 2.0 environment can impact decisions. Specifically, he launches into the idea that when all opinions are voiced on a topic and then averaged out, the best decision is reached. Though Lanier calls this an example of democracy, he does not mean it in an electoral sense. The idea is that the internet can be a massive peer-review network for anything and everything to ensure that humanity is putting forward ideas that are as close to the truth as possible.

One major issue with this concept developing is censorship. Even in nations that are nominally democratic, there is often a great deal of state censorship. With such governments well in place, it may be awhile before the true goal of the idea can be reached. The question now is if endless feedback and changes will allow us to actually reach the truth. For example, Wikipedia could function somewhat like this idea, yet it is not accepted as an academic source. Is this just an example of growing pains, or will a hive-mind knowledge bank never be the definitive source that we want it to be?

Digital Columbus

In the second chapter of Lanier's book, the focus is on the divide between virtual minds and human minds, the shrinking gap between them, and the impact of our fascination with them. Lanier cites the human fascination with consciousness that is not human and the way that a newly awakened consciousness would react to humanity. Though he does not deem them important enough to cite, there are enough Hollywood movies based off of this idea to show that this fascination extends beyond Silicon Valley philosophers and into the realm of the general public.

After reading this chapter, which is primarily focussed on the history of self-aware computing and the future of it, my thoughts turned to the way that we currently treat the machines that simplify our lives in so many ways. I have personally been witness to people actually physically hitting computers when they are not performing the way that the user expected them to. I found this interesting because it shows a lack of respect for tools. Some of it may be a function of the generation gap that still exists, with some people growing up with a mouse in their hands and others aching for the days of the slide rule. As the previous generation, who have not wholely accepted the presence of the computer in everything, passes away, the planet will be populated by those who have grown up using technology for nearly everything. It will be interesting to see if this generation will be as concerned with the possibility of a machine becoming self-aware as the previous one had been. Will the abuses of the current computer users be remembered by the intelligent machine?

This eventually led me to the concept of a post-colonial relationship between man and machine. The possiblity of a machine evolving to the point that it is not only self-aware, but aware enough to identify with predecessors of a more primitive type intrigues me. I look forward not so much to a future with a sentient robot to serve me, but instead one where machines have eveolved to the point of being able to create art. To see if another sentience would identify the same values as art would be fascinating.

The Masked Commenter

In Lanier's first chapter, he lays out some of the problems that he sees with the digital world. Though he spends time discussing how conventions that were put in place in the past limit us now and can continue to do so in the future, such as the 'file' metaphor, I'd like to discuss the other main portion of the chapter. Lanier lays out a few specific issues that he has, most of which I agree with. The one point of his that I'd like to focus on is his comment on 'trolling'. Though he doesn't offer his own personal definition, trolling, according to urbandictionary, is "Being a prick on the internet because you can." This definition works well enough for my discussion here, so we will use that. My contention here, which was sparked by the Lanier chapter, is the pressure that the web 2.0 environment and commenting in general can stifle the best opinions of content creators. Opening up articles, videos, etc, to public, anonymous discussion both in comments and in other blogs that can be created by anyone could mean that someone who previously would have worked to perfect their voice in a more confined setting could be discouraged by anonymous attacks from random individuals. Though it could be said that people who want to publish content should be prepared to face criticism and defend their stance or views, the anonymity of the internet has bred a culture of random and thoughtless attacks. These attacks can also cause talented individuals who are already established to lose control and lash out in return, which creates a sad cycle of insult that prevents valuable information from being created and shared. I'd like to cite the somewhat infamous example of the sports blog Deadspin and author Buzz Bissinger (http://deadspin.com/385770/bissinger-vs-leitch). Mr. Bissinger has written for magazines, newspapers, and books, all of which underwent a great deal of review, mostly favourable. However, he did not agree at all with, a) the fashion and content of a blog's reporting and b) the ability for anyone to leave a comment on an article, which, though they are moderated, are held to a standard somewhere around a locker room level of discussion. Bissinger eventually stopped writing for a period of time after this incident. While I don't agree with Mr. Bissinger here completely, I do see the larger problem of 'the mob' stifling the greatest work that can be put on the internet. Media 2.0 may need to break out of its 'lock-in', as Lanier puts it, of constant discussion for it to continue to grow. I see trolling as a rot in this development, and hope that it can be controlled.