Prime Time Replay:
Dr. Jacques Vallee
on Computer Networks
MsgId: *brain_storm(8)
Date: Fri Nov 15 21:49:59 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
Good evening and welcome to Brainstorms. I'm your host, Dr. Keith Harary. Our special in-studio guest tonight is renowned computer scientist and networking expert Dr. Jacques Vallee. For clarity, we'll identify ourselves by our initials: KH for Keith Harary and JV for Jacques Vallee. Welcome to Brainstorms Dr. Vallee!
MsgId: *brain_storm(10)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:00:27 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: Good evening!
MsgId: *brain_storm(11)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:01:22 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: We'll open with a very basic question: How did you first get interested in computer networks?
MsgId: *brain_storm(12)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:03:18 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: About 1971 I joined Doug Englebart's lab at SRI. Doug's staff had been exploring a vision of online communities and had started to develop some basic tools, like the mouse and an early form of hypertext. It was a lot of fun, especially when the ARPANET really opened up in '72. We also started seeing some of the behavioral and social effects right away. One of my tasks at the lab was to build the first database for the NIC (the Network Information Center) which only had a few dozen sites at the time. Later I met Paul Baran, who had invented packet switching at RAND and who was my mentor in a new ARPA project to study group communications through computers. Under ARPA and NSF funding my group at the Institute for the Future built and tested the first network-based conferencing system.
MsgId: *brain_storm(14)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:08:05 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: ARPA, of course, is the Advanced Research Projects Agency, affiliated with the Department of Defense, and the ARPANET was the grandfather of the Internet. What were some of the behavioral and social effects you first began to notice in investigating this early technology?
MsgId: *brain_storm(15)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:10:04 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: Oh boy. There were effects at many levels. Englebart's vision was of communities sharing vast information pools and making more rational decisions. Things didn't quite work out that way, in great part because there is no technological way to enforce agreement, consensus or even niceness among participants. Very quickly we found instances of what's now called "flaming" and that was very disruptive even among our own team. We also found that the medium was ideal for challenging authority, and that came as a surprise to the Pentagon. As networks have developed it's become clear to many observers that it enables organizations to restructure themselves more effectively, increasing the "span of control" on far-flung operations. But it also makes it possible for information to circulate from one end of a company to the other at many levels. This can have positive or negative effects.
MsgId: *brain_storm(17)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:14:22 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: This makes me wonder, Jacques. Do you think that sitting behind a computer terminal is somehow analagous to sitting behind the wheel of a car? That is -- there is a certain impersonal distance between you and other people, which may bring out some unusual behavior?
MsgId: *brain_storm(18)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:16:51 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: Any technology that sits as a screen between you and the rest of the world will do that, I think. The computer is especially challenging because it allows you to present yourself through a filter, and to see the world only as a reflection of certain interests. That's not necessarily bad: I've seen cases where conferencing has enhanced the sense of team, of belonging to a group. Other communications devices do this. Think of the simple Morse key, and what heroic actions people have been able to carry out through that simple channel.
MsgId: *brain_storm(19)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:19:09 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: There seems to be a certain irony in the kind of technological communication link you are describing. At one level, it brings people together across potentially vast distances. At another, it allows people to filter themselves -- to present themselves as someone other than who they are "in real life" and to act out certain fantasies or aggressions, or whatever. How do you think such behavioral phenomena will affect the Net in the future, and how will that -- in turn -- affect us all on a broader social level?
MsgId: *brain_storm(20)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:22:14 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: Wow! There are many issues here. At one level, conferencing has a lot of potential for therapy. We actually looked at aspects of this even on primitive networks, and the impact is considerable. Today as Internet users we find ourselves confused by people using false identities or making trashy comments all over the place. Any medium that attracts a mass audience, as the Web is starting to do, is bound to see content fall to the lowest common denominator for a while: just look at TV! The inventors of TV thought it was mostly going to be used to watch operas. This aspect of the net -- false personalities and fantasy exploration -- doesn't seem to me to be a long-term problem, it will find its own level. This is a very rich medium.What does bother me is the fact that, as "agents" become smarter and smarter and better capable of bringing us the information or services we want, they also create a mirror-image of who we are, and that image can be used by advertisers and marketers to pinpoint our habits as consumers -- not only of products but of information, knowledge and ideas. Another item that should worry us is that the software technology that "makes it" on the net today is the mediocre stuff. Just look at this form of conferencing, or e-mail for heavens sake! The net has grown by leaps and bounds, but we're still using software tools that date from antiquity.
MsgId: *brain_storm(24)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:30:24 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: So do you think there is a risk that we may become so used to and dependent upon information networks we will become a society of snoops, accustomed to invading one another's privacy as an ordinary way of life and doing business?
MsgId: *brain_storm(25)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:34:33 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: Sure there is such a risk. But people are tremendously clever and the technology also lends itself to fooling such attempts. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with a way to cloak yourself as a software consumer with specific interest profiles to defeat such snoops. You could send out one, two, or a few million such fakes across the net to confuse marketers. Also, I don't think the net will turn us all into cave-dwellers glued behind computers all the time. Back in the seventies (remember Nixon? The oil price freeze? The gas crisis?) we did a study of teleconferencing tradeoffs with transportation. Bob Johansen and I found that the more people used the net, the more they got to know other people, and the more they wanted to travel to meet them in person!
MsgId: *brain_storm(26)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:36:47 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: At the present time, we hear more and more about the growing popularity of the Net and the promise of even more advanced networking technologies to come. For example, we are hearing about the promise of live video and voice conferencing over the net as a regular feature of everyday life on the Web. Do you think this is realistic? Do you think the Web is here to stay or is it only a passing fad as some nay-sayers have dared to suggest?
MsgId: *brain_storm(27)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:39:32 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: The Web is here to stay, it's an irresistible phenomenon -- if only because it is being duplicated by hundreds of enterprises and groups through "Intranets" that are linking staffers within these companies. Intranet technology may be growing faster than the Web itself for a while. What I see happening in venture capital points to massive investments in infrastructure (the "pavement" of the information highway) that represent long-term commitments to the medium. That doesn't mean that it's not being oversold.There is a big fallacy, though, in the expectation that more bandwidth will necessarily improve communications and enhance social benefits of the net. A given technology can be excellent, or on the contrary very detrimental, depending on the task to which it is applied. For some tasks a simple teletype line may do the job better than two-way live video. For other tasks (like getting to know someone, interviewing someone for a job) even live video falls short. We are only at the beginning of the learning curve. My guess would be that we'll see multiple combinations of media -- text, graphics, voice, slow motion, full-motion video etc. -- being adapted to given tasks. That'll be a trial-and-error process.
MsgId: *brain_storm(29)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:45:07 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: We often hear the suggestion that the Net is the great equalizer. Everyone has equal access, and everyone is a potential publisher with a potentially vast audience. But isn't there a risk of information overload? How will people tell the wheat from the chaff? At another level, is there really equal access when getting on the Net requires very expensive technology?
MsgId: *brain_storm(30)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:48:16 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: Information overload is already here. I don't know what new users of the Net think, but it's a big surprise to me to find that people will be logging on to the Net to listen to Tom Brokaw telling them what's going on in the world. I grew up with a completely different model of the Net, where all that information would be available from multiple points of view and multiple sites, and it would be up to the user to filter it according to his or her own wishes. Of course as information fills the space that becomes unmanageable. . . . We may soon need a new branch of medicine specializing in information metabolism. It may turn out that our brains can only absorb, transform and use only so much information in a given period of time, just as we can only absorb so much oxygen, or water or food.On the matter of equal access, I share the concern of those who point to the future Webs being dominated by corporate structures -- including entertainment concerns driven by their own agenda -- who may "drive" the desires for information of a given user population in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. But when you come right down to it, that danger may be somewhere in the future, because the claim that "you can find everything on Internet" is a joke. Every day I look for stuff that's not anywhere on the Net, and I find myself reverting to good old ways to dig out information. The big problem, of course, is bandwidth availability as we start combining text-based communications (as we do tonight) with graphics and imagery. How would I access this medium if I was sitting somewhere in the woods of Mendocino, or in Britanny?
MsgId: *brain_storm(34)
Date: Fri Nov 15 22:56:56 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Is there a danger that we will become a society of haves and have-nots with regard to access to information technology? Will those who can afford or gain access to the most advanced networks have the power? If so, isn't that the opposite of what people originally expected from the "democratic" Web?
MsgId: *brain_storm(35)
Date: Fri Nov 15 23:00:20 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: What do you mean, "become"? We're already a society of haves and have-nots with regard to information. The Web changes the equation only to the extent that it makes dissemination of information more wide and more practical. You already see this in the software business: A small group of bright people can create information structures in a few weeks, and publish them through the Web itself, that will challenge even established empires like Microsoft or Netscape. So I would guess we'll find information power to be increasingly concentrated (think of all that power behind the Intranets) but at the same time these empires will be increasingly vulnerable.
MsgId: *brain_storm(36)
Date: Fri Nov 15 23:01:44 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Well, looks like we're out of time for tonight's Brainstorms. One last question, Jacques. What do you see as the greatest promise of the Net for society in the future?
MsgId: *brain_storm(37)
Date: Fri Nov 15 23:04:42 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: The ability to bridge time and distance in this medium is awesome. Anything we can say about the current benefits of the Web will become amplified as other parts of the world ramp up in terms of density of sites, and number of users. As an individual who tries to function across various cultures - between Europe and California, in particular - that's where I see the most promise, in the ability to stay in closer touch with a whole range of issues that are simply unmanageable under classical media. Not only issues, but staying in touch with the people behind the issues.
MsgId: *brain_storm(38)
Date: Fri Nov 15 23:05:45 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: Thank you, Jacques Vallee, for a most thoughtful discussion. I hope you'll be my guest again at some point in the future.
MsgId: *brain_storm(39)
Date: Fri Nov 15 23:06:29 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
JV: This was fun, I'd be happy to participate again.
MsgId: *brain_storm(40)
Date: Fri Nov 15 23:07:41 EST 1996
From: Keith_Harary_Ph.D._and_Jacques_Vallee_Ph.D. At: 206.80.181.193
KH: I'm your host, Dr. Keith Harary. We hope you'll join us again here next week at this same time on Brainstorms, for another fascinating discussion exploring the boundaries of the mind, the brain, and human behavior. Good night for Brainstorms.
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.