Slashdot Mirror


The Collective Voice of the Internet

nycheetah submits a story about the collective voice of the internet. There's also a Bell Labs webpage with some more technical information about the project.

31 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. It's Inaccurate. by cioxx · · Score: 5, Funny

    There was no moaning in the background. The collective voice of the internet would have lots and lots of lustful outcries. Afterall, the majority of the internet is populated with porn.

    1. Re:It's Inaccurate. by tanveer1979 · · Score: 3, Funny
      Nope its not inaccurate. Actually all the moans cancel out. This has actually proved that number of moanings is even. This is kind of logical becoz normally there are 2 people moaning ;-).....

      On further research I found out that since right now the server is pounded by slashdot, the sounds are slowly approaching cries of help....

      Better keep listning, soon you will hear the dying gasp too ;-)
      --
      My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
      FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    2. Re:It's Inaccurate. by Kwelstr · · Score: 2

      "Mostly I do a lot of cussing while swatting down all the pop-ups."

      Uh, one word: Mozilla

      --


      ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    3. Re:It's Inaccurate. by g4dget · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given the quality of porn on the Internet, it's perhaps not surprising that there isn't much moaning.

  2. What the collective voice says ? by Gyan · · Score: 3, Funny


    More p0rn !

  3. Upon hearing the collective voice of AOL, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...we suddenly realized it just said "Duh!?" over and over again ;-)

  4. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well that's all and good, but I really would like to meet the 'internet' on the street. Could you imagine what sort of person it would be?

    I'd be expecting a cross dressing mental patient complete with tinfoil hat dribbling nonsense at a mind boggling rate only allowing you to catch a few words here and there like "faked moon landing", "brittney spears nude", "you camping fag!" and "you're transmitting an IP address!".

    Of course I wouldnt have to give it any money, It would have already taken my credit card numbers for it's own penis enlargement addiction.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
  5. Bell's page appears Slashdotted, already?! by tgrotvedt · · Score: 5, Funny
    It looks like Bell's servers have gone down after only a couple of minutes!

    WARNING: The collective voice of Bell's admins will not be suitable for young children.

    --
    What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
  6. Useless by Lord+Puppet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There's also a Bell Labs webpage with some more technical information about the project."

    Great, but so far, you haven't provided any information. I thought that the purpose of the summary was to summarise. How is anyone supposed to know whether this article is worth reading if you don't tell us what it's about?

    1. Re:Useless by marhar · · Score: 2
      Simply mentioning "Bell Labs webpage" along with "technical information" indicates that it's probably worth reading.


      Just MHO, of course...

  7. Forget about art. This is a weapon! by ArcSecond · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe they can use this principle for security, too... have some "Rain Man"-type sit in a chair and monitor the composite sounds of the internet, scanning for a particular pattern.

    I wonder what the sound of a DDOS would be? A waterfall? Maybe a port scan would be a rising set of tones? And some cop in a LOLITA chat room would sound like (what else?) the theme from Jaws.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

  8. Can the web become conscious? by Xavier000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People may think this is a ridiculous question, but perhaps one that needs to be asked. First to put it in context. Inside most human brains are about a billion connections that communicate to a greater and lesser extent to those synapses directly in contact with them. The collective 'noise' from the electrical charges between the synapses somehow gives form to human consciousness. The electrical energy helps store memories and a bunch of other things, too.
    I read an article once by an Australian author Peter Goldsworthhy (if anyone is interested it is in his book Navel Gazing) that pondered whether or not China could collectively gain a consciousness, based on the same principle. (A billion people, all in contact with those around them, much as synapses are). I don't know how many people are connected to the web, but using a healthy dose of hope and suspending disbelief, does anyone have any ideas on whether or not the web can gain a consciousness?

    1. Re:Can the web become conscious? by mackstann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the problem i see with this line of thinking is that while there are billions, trillions, whatever-illions of connections going on inside your brain at any one time, you still only have one body to act with, one mouth to speak with, etc. the internet is many individual people, each of them complex and intelligent (it could be argued that neurons are complex and intelligent but from what we know, i dont think they are), but the internet does not have one point of actualization. it's just a bumbling mess of interconnected people, most of them just reading their email or chatting or reading yahoo news or *whatever* it is that most people do on the internet.

      sure sounds neat though :)

      replies encouraged :)

    2. Re:Can the web become conscious? by Xavier000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wasn't trying to suggest the web would start talking to us, but I wonder whether it could have a collective vibe that trickles from any part of the WWW to any other part. An understanding among all web users that this vibe exists. A form of consciousness, that is different to what we already utilise.
      I would also dispute your single point of actualisation. Some people cannot talk, but still have full consciousness. Some people have almost no working senses at all, but are still conscious. I don't think the point of actualisation is the point, it is the element of understanding. I am no philosopher though, any input from anyone else would sure be welcomed, especially someone with a philosophy major.

    3. Re:Can the web become conscious? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've often thought there might be at least two types of this "emergent consciousness" on the Net. One is, as you say, collective consciousness on the part of a large number of people. This already happens, I think, in large groups (much smaller than the population of China) -- any group of people, be it a business, a government, a church, a social group, whatever, develops some characteristics of a conscious being, with its human members as the cells. This is why people do things in groups that they never would as individuals. Some of the muscle cells in your arm may be pacifists who would never harm a soul ;) -- but when you decide to punch someone on the face, they pretty much have to go along with it. The analogies to the actions of the large groups I mentioned above should be obvious.

      The other, potentially more interesting kind is purely machine-based. I think all those old science fiction stories about a single giant computer or worldwide network that one day "wakes up" (and invariably decides to elminate its human creators) are a little bit off. The Net isn't a being; it's an environment, an ecosystem. There's a lot of semi-autonomous logic running around right now -- everything from search engine bots to viruses -- and it's subject to tremendous selective pressure. Some of it may be smarter than we know ...

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Can the web become conscious? by budalite · · Score: 2

      No. Possibly unconscious, though. :})||

    5. Re:Can the web become conscious? by 3Bees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What silliness! Why do you suppose that the Internet/Web hasn't already become concious? Why do you think that China isn't already a self-aware entity? Do you honestly have the arrogance to suppose that it was your choice whether or not you clicked on the links in the story?

      Why do you think that humans would be able to recognize whether or not this has happened, is happening, or will happen? Hehe, silly slashdot, philosophy is for the web-uber-mind!

      --
      "I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby
  9. Countless others... by archeopterix · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article:
    Countless others are with you when you browse the web, some reading the same words at the same time, and yet you have no way of sensing their presence.
    I remember a project that addressed this issue more directly - namely providing you with a client that allowed you to chat with folks visiting the same website. Cool idea, except for the privacy issues - the client of course had to report what websites you are visiting. The project was called 'gooey' or something similar. I guess it never took off. Well, they didn't have a Linux client, serves them right :-)
    1. Re:Countless others... by archeopterix · · Score: 2
      I tried the software and it was an interesting idea, but the biggest problem with it is it never took off.
      Well, perhaps a company with an established user base (one of instant messengers comes to mind) should try that. Of course, the privacy issues still remain valid. I would feel uneasy knowing that my client transmits the site URL to a central server.
  10. Shhhh.... by plaxion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Keep it down out there! Someone could be viewing this from a library.

  11. Why not make it useful? by ethank · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've explored the concept of proximity and simultaneity of presence within my own work, but do it on a website instead of within an installation.

    On my site we basically track where people are, but limit you knowing WHO those people are by using affinity relationships gleaned by your buddy list.

    The presentation of this information is in the form of a line similar to this:

    "There are 3 people here with you and 5 people near you.
    BUDDIES: Ethank, Ethank2"

    The site is broken down into a series of interconnected and hierarchically laid out "rooms." Rooms don't necessarily correspond directly to a page, but roughly they do. Within the discussion board for instance, a forum is a room and every thread within that forum a room under that room (so the forum is its parent).

    The way that the "here/near" works is by looking at not only who is in your current room (page) but also who is in rooms one level below in the hierarchy. Some places on the site have indicators on links showing how many people are currently in the room it leads to (to instigate flocking behavior in things like news stories).

    We implemented the system 6 months ago and I'm surprised on how willingly people adapted to it. If you look at an overhead view of the site, its shown that the proximity to other users in many tangible ways dictates usage patterns, as well as makes the site feel less like a ghost town.

    So where does this lead us? I want to explore more into this notion of reified third-space that this brings up, collapsing space/time into singularity and exploring the notion not of client-server individual experiential models but more of a shared one.

    But, instead of in an installation that distills numerous ingress points into an aural landscape, why not actually make this proximity and user awareness transparent on existing sites?

    I'm all for good installations (am doing one in April kind of similar to this, but dealing with the physical layer of the Internet), but as a student am more drawn toward subtle almost performative art within the context of Internet participation.

  12. When I watch TV there are even more. . . by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    people watching it at the same time. When I wash my car, read a book, eat dinner or just take a leak there are perhaps millions engaging in the same activity at the same time.

    Big deal. It isn't some mystical fact. Just a fact. It conveys no information other than the fact that there are billions of people who at any given time are doing one of a fairly limited set of things.

    We read greater things into it primarily because we are wired to seek acceptence from the tribal unit by behaving in similar fashions to the group. Geeks are nonconformists, although they tend to be nonconformist in the same sense that hippies and Japanese teens are "nonconformist." i.e., conform the same as me or you are "out."

    The idea of someone surfing the same page as you at the same time gives the illusion of "group membership" with that person even though no such "group" actually exists.

    It's a literal "feel good" idea of no actual signifigance. Your "group" membership is actually far closer with the guy that stocked the shelves at the supermarket where you buy your food or that damned cop who wouldn't let you off with a warning.

    This is not to say that real groups aren't forged over the internet. Just that they aren't any more "golly gee" than any other such tenuous groups, like everyone who watched Friends last night.

    KFG

    1. Re:When I watch TV there are even more. . . by katsushiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Turning that argument on its head: what exactly are 'real groups' then? I mean, is the fact that you just happen live in the same general geographical location as the other people in your town and are therefore part of the group 'citizen of town X' merely by being there any more 'golly gee' than the fact that you just happen to be surfing Yahoo at the same time as x amount of other people, therefore becoming part of the group 'Yahoo surfers'? How exactly is the group 'my family' more real than the group 'people who are surfing Porn.com', since in both cases it's purely random chance that you were born into your family, or that you are writing down how hot 'Porn Star X' in the forums at Pron.com at the same time as others browse the same site? Just something to think of, our definition of which groups are more 'real' than others.

      Of course, the argument can be made that certain groups, such as citizenship and family, are more 'real' because there is greater interaction among its members, while in the case of people surfing the same site, they're barely, if at all, aware of each other. But when you factor in a project like this one, where suddenly people are being made aware of the others on the websites they're on, then those groups start gaining a real legitimacy that's intriguing to watch.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:When I watch TV there are even more. . . by Angry+Toad · · Score: 2

      Geeks are nonconformists, although they tend to be nonconformist in the same sense that hippies and Japanese teens are "nonconformist." i.e., conform the same as me or you are "out."

      Hippies and Japanese teens? That's a rather odd pairing. The same thing applies to teens/twenties in North America today. I was forced to ride the bus a couple of weeks ago and was stunned to realize that I was completely surrounded by Eminems.

  13. depressing at best by Shymon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    God, just what i need. a vocalization of the collective stupidity of the average web user.

    now if they did a vocaliztion of the slashdot crowd....

    err wait...i don't know how many times i can hear "M$ sucks" over and over without cracking.

    1. Re:depressing at best by freeweed · · Score: 2

      depressing at best (Score:2, Insightful)
      by Shymon (624690) on Thursday December 26, @07:00AM (#4959986) ...

      err wait...i don't know how many times i can hear "M$ sucks" over and over without cracking.


      Well, 4,959,986 times and counting, here.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  14. No way of sensing? by MoreDruid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Countless others are with you when you browse the web, some reading the same words at the same time, and yet you have no way of sensing their presence.
    How about the /. effect? Seems one way to sense the presence of a lot of people.

    --
    The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
  15. Thomas Paine - Common Sense by msheppard · · Score: 2

    I'm reading _Common Sense_ on the palm right now, and find this quote interesting in relation to this story:

    Could the straggling thoughts of individuals be collected, they would frequently form materials for the wise and able men to improve into useful matter

    M@

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
  16. Re:Probably by Mathness · · Score: 2, Funny

    at least until PopUp blocking browsers like Mozilla/Galeon get mainstream

    The rest will just keep clicking and clicking and clicking...

    Wait a minut, does that means popups are powered by Duracell? =:O

    --
    Carbon based humanoid in training.
  17. Re:freaky by buswolley · · Score: 2

    All I heard was a company spying on the general public.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  18. What I wanted to hear... by Chicane-UK · · Score: 2

    The voices had just the right tone for :

    Captain : What happen?
    Mechanic : Someone set us up the bomb!
    Operator : We get signal.
    Captain : What!
    Operator : Main screen turn on.
    Captain : Its you!!
    Cats : How are you gentlemen!!
    Cats : All your base are belong to us.
    Cats : You are on the way to destruction.
    Captain : What you say!!
    Cats : You have no chance to survive, make your time.
    Cats : Ha ha ha ha ...


    Sorry.. :)

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"