Web 3.0 Artificial Intelligence Agents will be Conversation Agents

In the next ten years, we will see a realization of the initial promise of the Internet, some of which is beginning to show as driving forces today. Pull technology will replace push completely. This will take care of security and relevance for individuals and corporations thus eliminating waste of resources and bandwidth, both of which are already in scarce supply. Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents will pull information for us on the basis of parameters we establish and control. They will deliver it to the social networks that exist inside our own data network. Web 3.0 is the true era of conversation, where the real dialogue begins.

This will be the first of a series of reflections about the future of computing, social networks and email at work. Some of my reflections are inspired by the work of The Institute of the Future and its map of the decade, as presented in Get There Early. Others on visits with John Naisbitt in Megatrends. 

Consider what is at the root of all this -- language, markup language to be exact. The new generation of browsers will be smart clients, working online and offline to facilitate the connections of your AI agent with someone else's AI agent. Today, people like me do it. Information and connection brokers who know a lot of people and have an uncanny ability to match them for business opportunities.

Some implications (in no particular order):

1. Dealing with data -- we spend a lot of time filling out forms when joining networks, finding information about others we'd like to connect with, and keeping all those networks up to date. This is time consuming and inefficient; your data is as good as its maintenance. At corporate level, this means leasing lists, cleaning up lists, appending information, etc. Entire businesses exist and thrive on this model. Then there's the issue of security, and the way in which the information was obtained. Tomorrow, gathering and processing information will occur on the basis of parameters that you define. Open standards will allow browsers to be smart clients thanks to a common markup language. Programmed AI agents will determine what is good for you and pull it into your Internet.

2. Growth of networks -- the current model is just not sustainable. How many hours in a day are you willing to donate to a social network so that you can just barely keep up with its functions? We're talking about personalizing the mass media on such networks. This is still Web 2.0, a stage in which everyone is trying to figure out terminology and rules of the game. We need to make our Internet smaller, not bigger, yet more relevant to us. The social network lives inside your data network. Tailored to your needs and universal key to all your connections and relationships. Yet it's behind a wall, impenetrable from unwanted pitches and spam. Your own, guild-like private club.

3. End of selling as pitches and the beginning of the true era of conversation -- Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents as service that determines what is good for you given your specs, essentially just pull. Sales as push has nowhere to go. The technology will be there to keep out what we don't want. There will be people determined to create artificial personalities that will try to trick your agent and entice it to let them through your personal Internet/network walls. This is where the true meaning of authenticity in authentication will come in. When you're ready to make a purchase, your personal AI agent will query open networks according to set parameters and will make contact with the agent connected with the right resources. With more information, we need more automation of the smart kind.

4. Opt-in email -- imagine how happy you'd be with your in box(es) if all the email you receive is wanted, from people you know. How many hours do you spend each day filtering, deleting, going through spam? How much productivity do companies give up just to keep up? All because of email you don't want nor need. Email is push technology, interactive marketing is based on push technology. What if email were based on pull technology instead? We would put it under the permission marketing category. To have real exchanges, real conversation pull technology is the only way to go. Think about a whole network of encrypted email servers that talk to each other. This is where the action will be, operating systems will be less important.

5. Dealing with bandwidth -- this is a problem we have as human beings, we have only so much attention and time. And a lot of it is being wasted in dealing with the onslaught of stuff that has nothing to do with what we are working on or we need, etc. This is also a problem that the networks we rely on are wrestling with. Sure, one solution is to make the pipes and data storage bigger. How long before we run out of space? Is that data secure? Is it encrypted? Is it replicated so it can be retrieved in emergency situations? How about fail over, have you thought of that? The solution is not greater capacity. It's not even virtualization. The solution is less data that is more relevant. Then we pay only for what we want and not for the junk we receive. Think about mobile phones in the US -- we pay for spam (data and calls) as well. Why? Push technology.

Maybe you've read or heard about Firefox 3.0. What this browser has under the hood is more support for  microformats. This type of technology allows you to tag in a way that shows the relationship to the content it tags. I see these implications making a change in customer relationships, and all kinds of business models all the way to the root of how we work.

Some Considerations

We will look at Web 2.0 as window dressing. The real dialogue is with Web 3.0. Then we will have reason to talk about "the Internets". I mention encryption and security. This is what needs to be in place for all of it to work. Take a look at these presentations by Dan Frankowski, intern at Google, on You Are what You Say: Privacy Risks of Public Mentions, and Oren Etzioni, University of Washington, on All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Google [tip of the hat to Nick Carr].

My point of view is the conversation, I came to it from a humanistic angle, observing the dynamics of how we work and understanding the signs and symbols we use as reference points. If this is to happen, it will be by humans and through human intelligence. The machines alone don't do a thing. The reason why this has not happened is that there hasn't been a compelling (as in cash-rich) enough argument for it. There will be, we are tired of spam, your customers are tired of push, the systems are filled and rendered inefficient because of it. Too much noise, not enough signal. Basta! It's time to turn a new leaf.

I'm really interested in your take. I will pick up the threads of this conversation to examine current trends as insights to action in the coming weeks.

Comments

[Nick Huhn]

Beautifully composed, Valeria. I agree with your assessment of future trends that are right around the corner. I wonder too if/when browsers become less passive by nature and instead serve as lenses that peer into the 'cloud' depending on the situation or surroundings.

With each of us producing and consuming copious amounts of content, AI and microformats will certainly play a large role in the process of filtering and serving the most appropriate and contextually [time, location, behavioral] relevant resources.

Great take on current and future; anxious to see what others think and ultimately what the future holds!

[Francois Gossieaux]

Hi Valeria - great article! I do buy that there will be a Web 3.0. I am not sure however if it will be centered around smart agents. Many companies, including big players like IBM and small ones like Artificial Intelligence, tried to make these agents part of web 1.0 and then again as part of the web 2.0 world.

Remember - we always overestimate the amount of change in the short term and we underestimate the amount of change in the long term :)

So I believe that the web 3.0 will come, but that it will be much bigger than just having artificial agents...and take much longer.

My 2c...

Francois

[Carolyn Ann]

Wonderful post, Valeria!

I'm not sure about the programmatic changes to the web, but I can speak from experience re the infrastructural ones: unless it's proven to be business critical, and likely to be needed, backups, fail-overs and at-source data encryption won't be implemented on a wide scale. Just this past week I heard of two incidents involving data: the first is the data on the 25M in Britain (about half the population!), the other was an off-hand anecdote from someone in Britain's Health System telling the world that they gave a CD full of patient information to another person to send somewhere else. (Is that vague enough?) We read, on an almost regular basis, about some government official, somewhere, screwing up with a few million names. No responsibility is taken to ensure the protection of data: "it won't happen to me".

That's the bottleneck in data handling: people will not be responsible for more than have to be. Likewise, IT departments will not accept that they need better data protection until it's a bit too late. And they're optimistic, sometimes because the heads of IT are told by the CFO to cut costs, and sometimes because wishing, and believing, that "it won't happen to me" is seen as a viable IT Security Policy. (This is more usually known as being blasé and unwitting. :-) )

Changing that attitude will be tough - and it will require legislation. Business will not spend money on protecting your data unless it's mandated. (This is proven time and again; so often, it's ridiculous!) It's not seen as a "need", so the EU, California and a few others will likely lead the pack in forcing companies to protect customer data. Disclosure laws will prove themselves inadequate; those seemingly contrite apologies will be seen for what they really are: excuses to have not done anything until it was required. Web 3.0, even Web 2.X, will begin the demand for better Internet security.

I don't think data storage will be the problem: short term, there might be a bit of a crunch. But only at the individual consumer level; corporations, these days, have all the tools they need. SAN's (storage area networks) will become predominant, over time; the other access technologies will gently fade as they are seen to be what they are: stopgaps.

Personally, if I were in the quantum computing business, I'd concentrate on memory: not on processors. There's money in both, but memory is needed more than fantastically fast processors. The consumer needs data memory: they can't keep up with processors as they stand!

The killer apps that require memory? Flickr and YouTube. (And their kin.) (Did I just make someone rich? Please send gratuity... :-) )

Oh - you recently said: "I mean, how badly do you want something from the new line by Vera Wang?" Well, now you mention it... :-)

Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Nick -- about less passive browsers, I think we're starting to see that. Now that I use a Mac at home, I am fascinated by the differences even with systems from the Dell I have at work. In the last month I changed most of the content in my RSS reader, one site at the time. It would be nice to receive recommendations about related blogs, etc.

@Francois -- welcome to the conversation. Well put, we do tend to see change as the antagonist in the near term, thus casting it as drama, and to be overly optimistic about change in the future. When I bought my home, for example, I thought the fixing would never end and at the same time took on projects that resulted in much greater work than anticipated. Might this be human nature to help us survive in the short and stretch to grow in the long term? I'm all for greater change as respects the web.

[David Reich]

Bandwidth -- that's the challenge. I don't mean electronic bandwidth, since technology can deal with that. I mean the "bandwidth" of our own time and attention span.

Already, there seems to be too much being thrown at us by email and now through social networks we choose to join. And I'm afraid that somehow the spammers will figure ways to break through whatever firewalls are established.

Aside from the bandwidth problem, the possibilities of Web 3.0 are spectacular, I'd say.

[Mario Vellandi]

With David here on overload.
Thus it would make sense to have mechanisms to better usability/interaction.

This comes by way of process innovations.
There will be very few disruptive technologies. Upcoming brands that gain momentum will have adopted one of two strategies: Creative Imitation, or Entrepreneurial Judo.

But in the long run, whether we're talking about the indifferent/passive internet user class, the moderately connected, or hyperactive class - Strong usability coupled with the support of a dedicated brand (partners, parent company, distributors, fans) is paramount to differentiation and co-optation.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Carolyn Ann -- it's really hard for the business side to get what it takes to keep infrastructure working properly and data secure. I was talking to a company owner whose system crashed and he was completely helpless. He got what it meant only then, and at what cost. All his intellectual property was stored in there (in the creative business so design and writing). "Business will not spend money on protecting your data unless it's mandated." It's a Catch 22, alas. We are used to squeezing costs out of the equation on both sides. Alas, for us it comes at a cost we may reconsider. Another case when you don't think about it until you have a problem. And then, that's all you think about. Vera Wang, who would have thought? ;-)

@David -- that's why if we can eliminate spam, we spend mores time reading the stuff we actually want. A week or so ago I gave the example of "in person" spam and it's just as bad. A time waster for everyone. Ah, if only we put that same energy that is put into spamming for doing good!

@Mario -- source of this interesting information? Usability is key. Part of the new web and new users, too, will no doubt be a more natural experience, not just off line adapted to online as we often have now.

[Susan Cellura]

Valeria,
Great post and one thought, which is more focused on the short-term: From the perspective of a communications person who works in Corporate America, I still see a challenge in getting the executives to understand and believe in Web 2.0, much less understand Web 3.0. I won't quit educating and creating success stories, but I worry that more and more people will have to have, as you say, "crashes", to understand what you put together above in your post.

[John Dodds]

Data security will stem from the move to individuals owning their own data.

[Gavin Heaton]

You know, I think there is a lot more life in Web 2.0. I don't think we have begun to scratch the surface of its potential to change and shape our world. The Digital Enfranchising of larger proportions of our population will drive greater adoption of Web 2.0 and will open the Internet to an influx of non-English speaking participants.

And I have a feeling that the growth and energy for sometime like Web 3.0 may well come from cultures unlike our own (ie Asia/Middle East). The innovation that arises from this is likely to be discontinuous and hard to predict. But makes it exciting.

Thanks for provoking the conversation!

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Susan -- yes, the terminology can make a difference, a tremendous one at times. Web 3.0 is a code name, like we put on products as they are undergoing testing, before we brand them. What happens is that when enough people use it there is a certain stickyness to it. In many respects, we need to do a better job at translating the information in terms that are easy to relate to within the context of business. I'm all for that. Yet, if I called this post in any other way, people might have disagreed on what I was talking about. So far, these advances in semantic web, etc. are captured under the Web 3.0 umbrella.

@John -- precisely. Enough people feel the pain, enough people want control over their data and will migrate to those companies that offer it, and there you start moving the needle.

[mvellandi]

Sources:
On innovation, primarily my current readings of "The Innovator's Dilemma", and Drucker's "Innovation and Entrepreneurship".

On branding, primarily observation of large corp. acquisitions of smaller companies -> injected capital -> brand pollination across extended corporate network properties -> growth of adoption and utilization. In general, any way positive name recognition can be spread (commercial [traditional marketing, partners, parents] and organic [fans]).

On usability, a combination of observation of remarkable and fluid web applications like Flickr and Basecamp, my studies on NPD, a concurring opinion on John Maeda's laws of simplicity: http://urltea.com/27at (summary), some Wabi Sabi - Zen Principles of Aesthetics: http://urltea.com/27aw , and the book "Don't Make me Think!" by Steve Krug.

[Carolyn Ann]

I'm not so sure that we, the consumer and the individual, can ever re-assert control over "our" data.

The government(s), credit card companies, Google, banks and others maintain an incredible amount of information about each and every one of us. Some of it immediately accessible, some of it with a minor speed bump in the way. At some point, someone will come up with the business model that aggregates all this data, and then we'll live in a world that mixes Franz Kafka's and George Orwell's worst nightmares.

The social impact of this sort of knowledge is felt all around us; the arguments about The Constitution of the United States, for instance, have debates about "privacy" as a major component. (FYI, "privacy" is not written into The Constitution. It's in a small series of English laws that were passed from 16-something, through to Tom Paine's days.)

The world is changing, and people do feel less secure; when a corporation, or a government, tells us that we have nothing to fear from them holding the data on us... Well, I fear for the future - although I'm quietly resigned to the fact that it will become what it will. Europe tried to close the barn door on data privacy; the lackluster efforts were better than any in the US, but still amount to nothing more than a hill o' beans. A small hill, a mound perhaps, at that!

If, like me, you make most of your purchases with a credit card: you basically allow the corporations and information vendors access to your life. They don't (and won't) make decisions for you, but they're perfectly placed to "guide" you to decisions you might not be aware you've made.

Before we all zoom off into this fancy future where of data servitude, let's at least stop and consider what we can do to help us all feel a little more secure in the world. At-source encryption, taking cyber-crime seriously, and so on are all measures those active in this brave new world should be considering. Not to shape laws to their advantage, but to society's advantage and use. Individuals still count in Huxley's world, but sometimes, often, they get forgotten in the rush to bring them the latest service.

Oh, Valeria: re data loss. Yeah, I've been there. I've got some (now amusing) stories about that sort of thing; but it took a few years before they became funny!

I don't mean to be a Luddite, or a naysayer: I just think that those who are busy creating this brave and wonderful world should be ready to not only consider the consequences of some of their decisions, but help shape a solution to the more problematic ones.

Carolyn Ann

PS I'm republishing a good portion of this on my blog! :-)

[Carolyn Ann]

Oops: "fancy future where of data servitude"

should read: "fancy future of data servitude"

Sorry!
Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Gavin -- we much have pushed the publish button at the same time. Japanese is already the first language of blogs and Asia has been far ahead of the US on adoption. I would not be at all surprised if that's where the next innovation comes from. What I find fascinating is that the language of computing may be more universal than the various languages we speak. As we said earlier and others said better than me, we use terms like Web 2.0 and so on to comprise a much bigger concept.

You talk about people being able to get online. Only if they've got the money to jump in. My mother is currently being held hostage of a nasty telecom provider in Italy so she has sketchy service at a high price, which on a fixed income is difficult. In an earlier post I talked about how the connection pipes by and large still serve the corporations that built them... we are just on a lease.

@Mario -- thank you so much for the resources. I will check out especially "Don't Make me Think!" it sounds just perfect for me ;-)

@Carolyn Ann -- forgive the brevity here. You bring up valid concerns. And yes, somewhere in the back of my mind I always think about someone checking out my patterns in purchasing. I'm afraid I'm quite predictable when it comes to that. I was reading something the other day about cyber-crime and the level of sophistication it has achieved. I will discuss that in a future post, I think it deserves its own space, but trampling over people to go to market would not be my idea of service.