The idea is that using outrageously powerful supercomputers, the RPI engineers can essentially “program” basic reasoning and logic, allowing the avatar to be able to “understand, predict, and manipulate the behavior of other agents, in order to be genuine stand-ins for human beings or autonomous intellects in their own right.” OK, so that’s scary.

What do we have going for us? Right now the avatars can’t think (did I really just say “think”?) much more advanced than a typical 4 year old. But it is a 4 year old with adaptive learning, “In an instant, Eddie’s mind can be improved, and if the test is run again he makes the correct prediction.”

Our aim is not to construct a computational theory that explains and predicts actual human behavior, but rather to build artificial agents made more interesting and useful by their ability to ascribe mental states to other agents, reason about such states, and have - as avatars - states that are correlates to those experienced by humans.

“Applications include entertainment and gaming, but also education and homeland defense.” Homeland defense! So now the already scary “intellects in their own right,” are not just thinking for themselves; they’re being designed think ‘like us,’ presumably in a homeland defense scenario ‘be us.’ Clever way to find out what sort of anarchy will ensue if a cockroach really DOES eat Cincinnati. HA!

(And we thought Wargames was just a silly technophobia-inspired thrill. Can you say “ethical foreshadowing”, Joshua?)

This week I’ve started assembling a budget for the CCTV in Second Life project. This, of course, meant one of my favorite Second Life activities – shopping!

In Second Life, all of the content is user-created. One cannot help but be impressed with the creativity displayed in the objects for sale. The picture was taken in the Kunst Furniture Store, just one of many places to buy office furniture. There are so many choices in just this one store!

It’s fun to think that there is an “interior design” aspect to the CCTVSL presence. We’re trying to think in terms of “looking back, looking forward,” so a modern look seems to be appropriate. I’m thinking of designing and building the front conference room first. It will be nice to have a space in Second Life where we can meet virtually, when appropriate. Remember the Jetsons? Everything was modern, but the concept of “home” (dinner tables, bedrooms) was still the same. It’s the same philosophy here. CCTV has a certain character that I want to capture, in an updated way. Our signature neon sign is just the kind of thing that needs to be in SL… but I think we’ll go for a slightly more stylish table and chairs.

Putting together a budget is tougher than one might think. There is such a wide variety of options, and seemingly endless range of prices. There are free tables, that are quite a bit less elegant… the fancy one in the foreground of the picture is a whopping $L640! Oh… I should note that that amount is in “Linden Dollars,” Second Life’s currency… That’s about $2.72 in real dollars. But still, why spend $2.72 when there are other options? So, I’ll do some bargain hunting. In the meantime I need an “asset list,” a list of what will be needed to furnish the SL space, and then start plugging in numbers. Excel is my friend, just like Second Life!

Wilson is drawing on an in-depth article that notes trends in Wikipedia authoring to argue that, since relatively few people do the vast majority of the work at these two sites, that there is less of a democratic system at work than we think. But Wilson seems to be missing the definition of democracy here. Depending on your perspective, the top-heavy editing on Wikipedia is either unfortunate or irrelevant. What it is not, however, is undemocratic. To the point: If 100% of people chose to edit Wikipedia, 100% of them could. The limitations in place (contentious sites like George Bush are locked, for instance, although a solid discussion can get your point posted) run along the same lines as needing permits to gather huge groups of people. It’s not a matter of keeping you from congregating; it’s entirely about making sure sufficient safety precautions are in place. True democracy is about protecting everyone’s right to participate peacefully. Protecting people from flaming via a standardized (and, quite frankly, pretty liberal) editorial process is in no way undemocratic. It’s supporting a democratic environment.

Wilson totally loses me at two points in his article. The first is when he refers to Slashdot’s mod system as

perhaps the best example on the Web of a middle way. Slashdot, which draws on links submitted by readers, ordains active contributors with limited power to regulate comments and contributions from other users. […] The authority any one moderator commands is small, and the site’s official poobahs maintain control over which stories are featured at the top of the site.

How exactly is it that this is a “middle way?” This is, in fact, less democratic than Wikipedia’s system. First Wilson suggests that Wikipedia and Digg “effectively function as oligarchies,” followed quickly by “they are still democratic in one important sense. Digg and Wikipedia’s elite users aren’t chosen by a corporate board of directors or divine right.” If that is the basis of this argument, then why is Slashdot’s system – which is on a system of a chosen few, more of a “middle way” toward democracy?

The second place I get lost is in his discussion of the site Helium.com

Another compelling model comes from Helium.com,
a Wikipedia-like repository of articles and editorials. Its founder,
Silicon Valley veteran Mark Ranalli, compares his site to a capitalist
version of Wikipedia. On Helium, contributors compete to have the
top-ranked article on a given subject. As soon as you write an article,
you’re invited to pick your favorite of two articles on a similar
subject. Requiring someone to write before he or she rates creates a
more stable system: Rather than create a caste of creators and a caste
of peons, Helium encourages everyone to do everything.

Actually, this is the least democratic version of participation. Helium doesn’t “encourage” everyone to do everything, it requires participants to do everything, as opposed to being able to only contribute ones strengths. This is naturally going to reduce the number of contributors. If you don’t feel you can perform in all areas then you are not worthy of participating. Wilson seems to think this is a good alternative, “rather than create a caste of creators and a caste of peons.” What it does is create an extremely elite crowd of creators, a caste system for sure—what good is any capitalist system without a caste system?

Wilson ends his article with a call to action, “Digg and Wikipedia would do well to stop pretending they’re operated by the many and start thinking of ways to reign in the power of the few.” This, in fact, would be a move toward a less democratic process, a move toward a caste system, an oligarchy, a site run by “The wisdom of the chaperones”—not exactly a move in a direction of democracy.

To help get us started, we’ll be looking at other non-profit communities as potential partners who can offer us their experience getting organized in SL, as well as Cambridge community partners who would benefit long term from a SL presence.

Among our immediate development ideas are creating an SL museum to host archives of stills and motion medium from CCTV’s past 20 years. We are also seeking to understand ways to make this an educational venture AND venue, and as such are looking to set up appropriate classroom space in SL. Finally, because we want non-local (in real life) visitors to be able to appreciate the scope of our current work, we would like to create a viewing area where people can come to learn about our community as it is represented in CCTV’s programming. We hope to make this not just a viewing space, but a space for dialog, and are considering ways to foster feedback and asynchronous conversation in the same space as the viewing room.

Finally, as part of CCTV’s overall mission, we intend to make this not just a local experience, but an opportunity to compile and share our knowledge with other cable access stations considering making such an excursion. Although I’m not sure what the format will be precisely, the final product will offer resources, recommendations, and a retelling of the obstacles (and triumphs!) the SL project encounters.
Since I am technically an intern as well as a member, I will also be considering this from an academic perspective, asking “What does ‘local access’ mean in a virtual world?” It’s a question that ties in with Colin Rhinesmith’s Master’s Thesis. Both will have increasing relevance as we move into a world more mediated than at any point in history!

Image courtesy of Things are better with a parrot

Remember Valentines Day as a kid? You prayed mom would let you get the valentines that had little tootsie rolls in them (because everyone always wanted one of those). Candy or not you diligently wrote the name of each of your classmates on the pieces of glossy cardboard slightly smaller than index cards. It was a lesson: You gave EVERYONE a Valentines Day card. Sure, somewhere along the line you got didn’t get a card, and got a lesson in rejection. Hey, a lesson is a lesson. And now that you’re older you can appreciate all the Valentines you did get.

But, it seems, these days a lot of energy goes into rejecting Valentines Day. I myself thought about throwing a “Black Thursday” party. “Down with Valentines Day!” I said. Then finally I asked myself - “Why?” With all the memories that led me to write the paragraph above, and a little nuanced reflection, and I’ve made the decision that I truly believe we should celebrate Valentines Day. But the very thought raises objections all around. These are the top three I’ve heard:

A. “It’s a Hallmark holiday”
B. “You should be sweet to your partner everyday, if you need Valentine’s Day there’s a problem.”
C. “It’s too expensive to: 1. Buy flowers 2. Go out to dinner 3. Buy the requisite 5 pounds of Godiva”

The reality:

“A” is just totally False
“B” is True AND False
“C” Totally True (but why should that stop you?)

Is Valentine’s Day a Hallmark holiday? No. It has a history that goes way before Hallmark. Hallmark did what any good American corporation worth its salt should do, and has capitalized - in a big way - on Valentine’s Day. But it’s not “Administrative Professionals” day which, to my knowledge, IS pretty much a Hallmark holiday.

Hallmark sells Christmas cards too. Have we decided that Christmas has become an overblown retail holiday? Yes, actually. BUT, how many of us still participate? We haven’t decided that the retail industry’s occupation of the holiday is grounds for rejecting spending time with friends and family and exchanging gifts. We haven’t let Christmas fall victim to industry-focused moral outrage. Why should Valentines Day suffer such a fate?

I can appreciate the notion that we should be sweet to our partners all the time, we should! But it’s good to stop and, as a whole, have a day dedicated to it too! I say let’s make it even bigger! We almost never stop to say something like, “I LOVE YOU in the way that only a cubicle mate can love another cubicle mate,” to a co-worker. Not so keen on them? How about the UPS carrier? I’m serious! Let’s take back this day and celebrate it with “I LOVE YOUs” all around. On Valentines Day we’ll make sure we take a moment to appreciate and love each other, in the same way that we stop to give thanks that mildly random Thursday in November. If, in this society, we need an excuse to say I LOVE YOU to one another, let Valentine’s Day be that day.

I can understand people getting frustrated at the 50% markup on red roses, and dinner reservations that need to be booked on Jan 2. That’s expensive and frustrating. AND it’s not what Valentine’s Day is supposed to be about–at all. If you’re in a coupling, Valentines Day can be celebrated by a a little wine and a homemade meal. (Or pizza by candlelight, if you fear the stove like me.) Just do a little something - for yourself and your partner - that stands out, even if just a little. If you’re not in a coupling, Valentine’s Day should be no less fun! Let’s de-stigmatize this as some sort of couples-only holiday. Let’s throw parties at the office, after work… let’s take the time to acknowledge and - YES - LOVE the other people who are a part of your daily lives, be they parents, baristas, even fellow commuters - wouldn’t they be wonderfully surprised!

We are making ourselves greater victims of the industry by wasting our efforts and energy expressing our moral outrage than celebrating it on our own grounds. We can reject the industry model AND still celebrate it as a wonderful holiday, acknowledging friends, family, and partners. Valentines Day 2009 expect to hear me say it loud and clear: I LOVE YOU!

WBOS Changed its format and axed its DJs
(except George Knight who will still do a Sunday morning show)

I can’t even give you the link because they’ve axed their website too.

I used to brag about WBOS… George Knight moved to mornings, but I remember saying of him “I actually feel like I’m just hanging out at night and George is over in the corner goofing off a bit, giving me some scoop on musicians I love, introducing me to great new songs and artists, and playing fantastic music.” They also played all that great Boston local Music. That’s how I found out about Laura Vecchione. WBOS - What are you thinking??

And the Studio 7 series - brilliant and philanthropic… what will come of that?

…And how weird that mid-day host Dana Marshall is now Program Director and was a part of the decision. I suddenly feel like I’ve been cheated on for weeks!