| |
|
Global Cyberspace and Personal Memespace
Virtual worlds populated by avatars of real people interacting with each other, bots, agents, and exotic life forms: is this the future face of cyberspace?
Originally published on KurzweilAI.net
on February 22, 2001. Updated on February 27, 2004. Also published
on The
Digital Space Commons.
.jpg)
Bruce
Damer in-avatar
at the 2000 Avvy Awards "cosmic experience".
Co-founder, The
Contact Consortium and Member, Digital
Space Commons.
What Is Virtual Reality, where did it come from
and where is it today?
.jpg)
Dr.
Hunter Hoffman treats a spider phobic at the HIT Lab, One of
the few surviving successful uses of Virtual Reality technologies.
Virtual Reality was born as a movement and a medium back in the
late 80s and early 90s which sought to invent technologies that
completely immerse people in 3D graphical spaces, usually with head-mounted
displays or other devices. Apart from some serious medical issues
with the approach (vertigo or nausea in 60% of those who tried it),
VR suffered from another problem: it sought to really impress people
by flashy virtual worlds totally devoid of social interactions (i.e.:
for most part you were totally alone in these worlds). VR and those
who supported it largely ignored the fact that human beings are
social, communicative animals. Empty worlds are just not interesting
enough for most of us to return to. To top it all off, much of the
VR content was visually very unappealing.
Some notable exceptions include Placeholder
by Brenda Laurel, Rachel Strickland and Rob Tow (1992) and Char
Davies' Osmose (1995). Seminal work was also done by Scott Fisher
et al. at NASA Ames Research Human Factors Lab in 1986-88 (for which
Jaron Lanier's first Head Mounted Display was commissioned). And
of course the precursor technologies pioneered by Myron
Krueger and Vincent John Vincent are important for what they
taught us. As early as 1980 the Architecture Machine Group (later
the Media Lab)
was doing experiments in remote presence and avatars with projection
schemes. Again, Scott Fisher and Susan Brennan were important players
(as well as Negroponte) in this early work. More recently, Rod
Brooks of robot fame has done something interesting to tease
out telepresence from VR and make the former another kind of reality
(this section courtesy Brenda
Laurel).
VR largely predated and was ill equipped to catch the boom of the
Internet. Today VR survives in commercial use in location-based
entertainment, as training systems, and in some truly innovative
applications in art, and in medicine and psychology (see Galen
Brandt's pages on Virtual Healing).
So where did virtual communities come from?
Emerging during the 1970s and even earlier social and game play
experiments in online systems, a movement grew in the 80s involving
thousands of people on text-based interfaces who were "building"
virtual worlds out of words. These were the first true inhabited
community spaces, called MUDs,
MOOs and the like. These simple non-graphical spaces used the power
of language to construct space. How can you build a world out of
words? You are watching text like "you enter the room, there
is a bot standing over there that says hello, I have a message
for you, and you notice a shiny glass box on the floor.."
and a narrative, a story forms in your head. It's as easy as that.
These "text based Virtual Realities" had a profound impact
on their citizenry and certainly produced more real immersion than
was ever achieved by VR. Pavel
Curtis, one of the leaders of this movement declared seven years
ago that "people are the killer app of the Internet".
He was right then and he is right today.
Related links: see Pavel
Curtis on Mudding and his Social
Phenomenon in Text-Based Virtual Realities (1992)
So what happened after VR, how could you get people into Cyberspace?
An amazing thing happens when you combine text based virtual communities
like MUDs with powerful gaming engines (one of which astounded the
world with Doom in 1994), you can create an compelling inhabited
3D space with the social and story power of language. And several
visionaries did just this by 1995 creating some truly magic, that
could be experienced by everyone. Lets look at their story next
.jpg)
Beam me in Scotty! An avatar materializes in the
hub of the Worlds Chat Space Station in Spring 1995, and a whole
new Cyberspace is born!
In the Spring of 1995, with little fanfare, Worlds
Chat, a bona fide "avatar" virtual world was launched
on the Internet. An avatar is a likeness of a person as seen in
cyberspace, usually in a 2D or 3D visual space. No goggles or wrap
around displays were needed to interact in Worlds Chat. Users on
basic 486 PCs, could simply download software, connect on a 14.4
modem, and launch themselves into a space station in Cyberspace.
Other people online live in Worlds Chat scooted around the station
in avatars ranging from a fish to a kid in a tie-dyed T-shirt. I
was personally amazed by Worlds Chat when I entered it for the first
time on May 11, 1995 (see my piece Visions
of Avatar Cyberspace for this recollection). I gingerly navigated
into the hub, oh so careful to not bump into anyone, not knowing
the local social mores. The design of the space and its soundscapes
was attractive and, boy, was it fast and smooth to move around.
So where did the term "Avatar" come from?
Definition: Avatar, Chip Morningstar, 1985: "Originally
the term avatar came from Hindu mythology and is the name for the
temporary body a god inhabits while visiting Earth. Avatar can also
denote an embodiment or concrete manifestation of an abstract concept.
The ancient Sanskrit term avatara meant "a passing down".
Avatar was first coined for use in describing users' visual embodiment
in Cyberspace by Chip Morningstar in the early days of the first
avatar environment Habitat back in 1985. In text-based virtual communities,
the term avatar is not used, users are identified instead by handles,
aliases or nicknames. Avatars are also called: characters, players,
virtual actors, icons, or virtual humans in other virtual communities
or gaming worlds. " From "Avatars!"
glossary
by Bruce Damer. See Chip and Randy Farmer's early work on the subject
in From
Habitat to Global Cyberspace.
.jpg)
Considering one's embodiment at the mirror in the Worlds Chat
garden.
But the biggest thing I was conscious of was that.. hey, there
are real people here! I thought, "it is beginning, real Cyberspace"
that we all have read about, in fiction from William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
and Neal
Stephenson's "Snow Crash" to the virtual worlds of
Hollywood. After all, surfing web pages is hardly experiencing Cyberspace.
In the 2D Web there is truly no "there" there, just a
bunch of linked documents, highly practical, no doubt, and the dream
of former generations of the readers of Vanevar Bush (see his As
We May Think Atlantic Monthly article from July, 1945) and followers
of Ted Nelson (see the Xanadu
project pages) but hardly appealing to your average 14 year
old today.
So what happened to these first virtual worlds when they went
online?
.gif)
High altitude view of the center of the original AlphaWorld
a world touched by hundreds of thousands of people, with millions
of objects put there by them since 1995. Explore
AlphaWorld with this map from the good folks at ActiveWorlds.
By 1996 avatar space was exploding. The birth of AlphaWorld,
which became Active
Worlds was a phenomenal explosion of architecture, where untold
hundreds of thousands of users constructed a vast, unplanned cityscape
on a pristine green digital plain. These 3D spaces were "colonized"
and constructed by real people working at home on modems and their
social networks and communal construction of the 3D content guided
its evolution (see the AlphaWorld map here). In AlphaWorld, 3D was
about creating new powerful ways to be together with people. 3D
was at the service of "the person", not at the service
of "the application".
.jpg)
Amazing
Digital Space Traveler, featuring "floating head"
avatars that lip synch live voice, in stereo, and working on ordinary
PCs and modem connections.
These social/creative virtual worlds were not limited to AlphaWorld
and Worlds Chat. Avatar spaces of many species explored different
ways of representing avatars (as in the 2D worlds of The
Palace, Virtual
Places and WorldsAway)
and different means of communication, such as the voice and lip-synched
worlds of Digital
Space Traveler (see above). Recently Second
Life from Linden Labs and There.com's
social cyberspaces have been launched. A whole galaxy of these worlds
can be explored at the
Avatar Teleport.
So, did this first generation worlds make any money? Are they
still around?
So how did the first generation avatar virtual worlds companies
do? Some have ceased to exist or are close to it. Virtual community
and companies just don't mix well sometimes (more about that later).
Surprisingly, often when the company that created a particular avatar
technology goes dot-com bust, the communities keep the servers up
and continue on, sometimes forming new companies. This happened
with the citizens of the Palace, Traveler and Active Worlds. This
is a testament to how well loved these spaces have become.
What about massive, multi-player online games, we hear a lot
about them these days?
.jpg)
Scene from America's Army.
The real action in virtual worlds today is in the gaming worlds
including: Id Software's networked Doom, then Quake, and more recent
impressive multi-player gaming worlds including Electronic Arts'
Ultima Online,
Sony's Everquest,
Microsoft's Asheron's Call, EA's The
Sims Online, the groundbreaking America's
Army (from the US Army), and Sony's new Star
Wars Galaxies. Each of these projects is like a feature film
combined with a theme park, you need a lot of budget, a lot of creativity
and a lot of staff to make these places worth people returning to
(and paying a month-by-month entry fee).
So the Internet is about community and communications, so what
kind of community is going to emerge next?
.jpg)
Burning Man festival, photo by the author, see other
pictures of the festival here.
Well, the growth of avatar and multi-player gaming virtual worlds
on the Net since 1995 is now going beyond its dedicated early adopter
community and is headed for the mainstream. The pioneering early
citizen community and its experiences of life in a social, creative
and spatial Cyberspace, is a bellwether for the future of interaction
and their stories are powerful indicators of the coming dimensions
of life online. Of course the old battle lines will reemerge here:
you only live in a place if you can make it your own, but you have
to pay for it, and someone is going to broker goods into your community
for that privilege. Is it the future of Cyberspace to be more like
the creative noncommercial instant city of Burning
Man or the glittery pocketbook-evaporating casinos of nearby
Reno? Can true community exist within or sponsored by companies?
How about open source, Charodic or franchised virtual community
economic systems, can they evolve and grow in the face of the two-headed
Tyrannosaurus Rex of AOL/Time Warner?
Why don't you like to call all this Virtual Reality?
Well, in truth, these virtual worlds are not trying to be immersive,
in fact, the graphics matter less than the quality of the communication
between people. Embodiment of a person online comes through dialogue,
with the scenery and dress taking second place. And, there is nothing
"virtual" about the "reality" of people's interactions
and lives in these worlds, where they meet people and experience
events that touch them as deeply as anything in "RL" (Real
Life) .
What is the best way to jump into some of these worlds?
.jpg)
Virtual
Playa, an on-line 3D Burning Man world by Andrew Johnstone.
Many of these worlds (like the Burning Man Virtual Playa world
above) still require a download and installation but are still worth
exploring. A great tour of the first generation of Internet virtual
worlds can be had at the Avatar
Teleport and a grande tour with stories, guides to life "in-world"
a glossary, and history is available in the full
unabridged online version of Bruce Damer's book "Avatars!"
(PeachPit Press, 1998):
Some people claim that you would naturally want your own image
represented on your avatar (a virtual You), is that something people
will naturally gravitate toward?
To paraphrase Steve
DiPaola (professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia
Canada), attempts to achieve photorealism in virtual space or in
the representation of people is subject to powerful laws of diminishing
returns. The more realistic the attempt, the more open to criticism
it becomes and the more costly the technology to reproduce it. For
example, recently I have been contacted by a number of companies
(or media reporting on them) who are yet again trying to create
businesses riding on photorealistic talking heads. In 6 years I
have seen every single one of these type of efforts fail to attract
any user base. In fact, at our first conference on Avatars (Earth
to Avatars 1996) there was such a company. I watched as they
wrapped photographs of attendees around 3D models, eager to create
a stampede to "put yourself in cyberspace". Without exception,
every person presented with a wonderful rotatable version of their
own visage blushed, laughed, was embarrassed or otherwise weirded
out by the results.
Read Steve DiPaola's Siggraph
97 Panel commentary:
" physically based spiral of infinite betterment
Given the natural emulation goal, one might assume that the design
choice is to strive to make things more and more realistic, this
is not so. A major truth in computer graphics and simulation (and
well known for facial modeling) is the more realistic you make something,
the more open to criticism it is for not being realistic enough.
So we emulate natural paradigms just enough to achieve recognition
of familiarness. Is 'just good enough for all practical purposes'
just good enough?"
Steve DiPaola, April 1997
See his site at www.dipaola.org.
Why were they so weirded out? For starters, most people don't like
what they look like in photographs, or even mirrors. Our media and
commercial culture has taught us that unless we are Britney
Spears, we don't measure up. Ordinariness is no longer OK-ness,
especially for women. In 6 years of Avatar experience online, it
is a rare sight indeed to see a real likeness of a citizen. That's
the whole point and power of life behind the digital veil.. anonymity
and being what you want to be today! Hey, nobody bought videophones
in 1960, and nobody buys them today. The telephone provides a kind
of glorious anonymity and freedom from having to be seen in the
right visual social state.
.jpg)
The author as a photorealistic avatar model (courtesy Peter
Huges at Live Picture), in a word.. yikes!
But it goes deeper than that, far into our evolutionary past. My
anthropologist friends tell me that it is likely that the plains
of Africa 2 to 5 million years ago saw may humanoid groups bashing
each other's brains out. Therefore, for most of our time on this
Earth we have been terrified of "the other", or "the
stranger". From UFO believers, to horror flicks, the most frightening
thing to a human is another human with a distorted face. On the
African Veldt, the face was likely the best way to determine friend
and foe, my subspecies or yours, and it was a matter of life or
death. Presenting a digitally distorted human face.. now that is
dangerous territory. Nothing weirds out a person faster. We will
accept cartoons, masks, abstractions, even just straight old flat
photos, but try to create a deformable, 3D head and that's where
some seriously ancient social neurons kick in.
I wish the many ventures that try to do photorealistic avatars
or bots and agents well in these efforts, but don't burn through
too much of someone else's money before you do some focus groups,
or enter real living avatar spaces and ask citizens what they prefer
and why. Eventually we may become used to high resolution realism
in our avatars or talking head webguides, but like the old VR field,
it might not be too late to hire that primatologist!
So people are weirded out by photorealism in their own avatars,
what about bots and agents, will these be accepted as substitutes
for real personal interaction online like Ray claims?
Well your readers may ask here, "what is a bot"? The
word bot is a shortened form of the term "robot"
a Czech word coined by Karel Capek in a play in the early part of
the last Century. Robot is derived from Rabotai, which means "to
work" in Czech. In its fictional life, a robot is an artificial
human brought into this world to perform work (most real robots
don't look humanoid at all and labor out of sight in assembly lines).
Bots on the net most often refer to little bits of code, running
within a chat room, MUD or MOO, or embodied as a visual object in
a virtual world. That code is likely to be designed to interact
with real users in the community to provide services. For example,
bots in textual MUD worlds were often designed remember a phrase
told them by one user, to be repeated later to another when they
entered the room inhabited by the bot. Bots in 3D virtual worlds
frequented by real people in their avatars have blossomed in the
past two years, doing everything from performance (marching bands)
to building structures (speaker rooms at cyber-conferences). More
on that later when we tell the story of Xelag and his life with
bots.
So what is an Agent, how is that different from a Bot?
Agents on the other hand come from engineering traditions,
and are most likely to be bits of code designed to interact with
other bits of code. Agents, sometimes called daemons, run at the
lower levels of operating systems, clean up trash on servers, engage
in big scientific and industrial simulations, and do other machine
to machine tasks. Lately there has been a move to bring agents into
the realm of interaction with people online, most often occurring
as a "talking head" conversational agent, and text-based
question and answer interfaces. Agents are thus likely to be isolated
on a web site and not within the interactive context of a living
virtual world or text-based chat environment.
Digimask,
your own face in cyberspace? Is this lady feeling flattered? Click
on her and see what she says.
.jpg)
Televirtual,
cuter talking head telling you how to navigate their website in
a stilted synthesized voice, is it annoying? You
be the judge!
.jpg)
Eyematic,
a bit more entertaining.
I would say honestly that for me the "talking head" style
agent that you see above may have as big a problem gaining acceptance
as the photorealistic heads described earlier. You know what, people
just hate those automated phone answering systems many "customer
service" organizations subject us to. We are bombarded daily
with impersonal interfaces, companies and governments trying to
save money or who have lost touch with their businesses present
us with cost saving, frustrating systems. Talking head agents come
dangerously close to triggering the "damn it give me a real
person" response we are now conditioned to. When it comes down
to it, it is very very hard to create a convincing, entertaining
synthetic character. If a talking head is meant to entertain us,
then fine, we will sit back and watch the theater (see http://www.dotcomix.com
for some great examples of this). If however, we are trying to search
for something, find an answer, or just get our work done, then I
predict that these automated personalities better come with quick
a "turn off" switch. Sorry I am being so harsh on well
meaning, hard working technologists but does anyone remember (or
use) Microsoft Bob, Open Sesame or Mr. Paperclip from Microsoft
Office?
After all, younger minds engaged in multi-player gaming we mentioned
before (Everquest, Asheron's Call, Ultima Online, and Quake) treat
"non player characters" to the sword, rail gun or other
ignoble end. They are certainly going to have a "sub zero tolerance"
for attention soaking, slow speaking, lowest common denominator
talking heads. Hey, they get enough of this in the classroom!
Other people believe that humans will be able to "upload"
their intelligence (even souls) into computers within 25 years and
that synthetic characters (bots) will be so compelling as to be
the indistinguishable from a living, breathing person, what is your
view on that?
Well, yeah, so here is where I must diverge from the honorable
Mr. Ray Kurzweil and other engineer's fascination with bots, agents,
synthespians and the like. People go online primarily to interact
with other people, and they are not easily fooled nor enticed to
spend time with automated personalities (they in fact feel cheated
of real interaction). I see in the current fascination with talking
heads a return of the old dream of "Grand AI", powered
by four generations of engineers' dreams to create the artificial
human, the fully developed synthetic mind. Hey, we have only vague
ideas of what consciousness is and how the brain works, and it is
likely you could not code human intelligence in a bottle, separated
from its total environment. Our best engineers also are not very
good at creating software (more on this later) so only in Hollywood
will we experience the enticing (or horrifying) visions of Grand
AI.
What I think is coming down the pipe, is what I call Tiny AI
which, in the form of bots and agents, are micro-intelligent prostheses
that augment reality, and extend the capacity and reach of the human
mind and community communications. The interview
of XelaG and his bots illustrates perfectly the coming wave
of personal Tiny AI. XelaG feels less present in a space without
Delph, VBird and Pal and they provide him numerous services and
support his presence in Cyberspace. I think an ethical issue will
arise in which people will demand to know when a Tiny AI is talking
and when a real person is interacting in real time. So my particular
vision is that a person will exist in cyberspace (which includes
the space of wireless devices) as an avatar embodying their real
time presence surrounded by a cloud of Tiny AIs which proxy them
into many processes and aspects of virtual community.
What, you mean we won't be creating "Grand AI" any
time soon, why not?
Well, it turns out as Jaron
Lanier (the guy who coined the term Virtual Reality) wrote recently
in his Half
a Manifesto that people are pretty bad at writing software.
It took 25 years for a competent networked graphical workstation
to make its way from
Xerox PARC to my house. Just think about it, it took us decades
to create one competent, stable PC operating system (have we done
it yet?). I, like Jaron, doubt whether applications of any sophistication
(that can truly learn or write their own extensions) will come about
within 25 years. However, software, the Internet and Cyberspace
holds tremendous power to extend the reach of human contact with
the world, other people, and even out into the Solar System. Heck,
it is 2001 and we don't have anything close to Kubrick and Clark's
HAL
9000 (Grand AI) but we have email, which I reckon is a lot more
significant. Humans in the loop, it was a good idea during
the MAD days of the cold war, and it is a safer bet now. How about
technology at the service of Humans (Tiny AI) and hopefully, to
help us keep ourselves from destroying the biosphere and all that
has been built over these four thousand millennia.
But will Bots and other Tiny-AIs exist? And how will they live
with us in Cyberspace?
.jpg)
Delph,
VBird and Pal following XelaG around the hub see the full Interview
with XelaG and his bots here.
Yes indeedy, Tiny AIs do in fact exist now. In virtual world spaces
like Active
Worlds, thousands of them are running around there 24/7. A wonderful
example of the emerging bot-avatar-human synthesis is a fellow known
as XelaG. XelaG lives in Holland, although he is originally from
Uruguay in South America. He is a seasoned programmer and also something
of a philosopher, a good story teller and a very interesting man.
XelaG is also no young chicken in the chatroom, he is around fifty
and has had a challenging life at times.
Several years ago, XelaG decided to create some alter egos, and
picked up his toolset to craft [Delph] (the "[]" brackets
are used to tell Delph from a real human), his first and most powerful
uber-bot. Working in the Active
Worlds environment, XelaG and [Delph] and other bot foundries
set out to create something of a revolution. For before the rise
of bots, to build in Active Worlds you had to stand in your avatar
at the building site and copy and move around objects in a laborious
lego-like process. XelaG, through untold hours of code-banging,
trained [Delph] to erect structures and take them down, to run slide
shows, to talk to big industrial strength databases, to put on a
great game of trivia, and later, to direct a whole family of bots,
that would follow XelaG and [Delph] around. When XelaG was unable
to attend a virtual event in a certain world, he would dispatch
[Delph] to listen in. [Delph] even orchestrated the grande finale
performance of the largest event in virtual world Cyberspace, the
annual Avatars cyberconference. For this, [Delph] dispatched a cloud
of huge pac-men bots to consume a stage and entire ring of the giant
Avatars2000 space station, leaving several hundred live attendees
in their unsuspecting avatars to fall through a mile long vortex
and into the "cosmic experience" (pictures and video can
be provided). By all accounts, this event, held on October 15th
of last year, was one of the most profound ever experienced by seasoned
citizenry of these early adopter worlds.
So how does XelaG describe his relationship to [Delph] and his
compadre bots? I interviewed
Xelag recently about his Life with Bots.
From the
interview: So do you feel as though there is a bit of you online
even when you are not there, if [Delph] and co are holding the fort?
XelaG: Yes, sort of... What I mostly feel is that there is a bit
of me missing when they are not there :)
See the Avatars
Book chapter on Bots, Agents, & Biota for a full treatment
of this fascinating subject.
So what kind of things are you doing these days in Virtual
World Cyberspace?
.jpg)
Cosmic
Experience at the Grande finale of Avatars2000.
Virtual worlds and avatars allow you to hold huge (i.e.: 100,000
people or more) events in very exciting virtual venues online. I
invite you to explore sites below that show some of the power of
these events for 21st Century Cyberspace. The annual Avatars
Conferences can be seen here.
.jpg)
See the upcoming AvaMars event at the Contact
Consortium Homepage.
You can "Drive
On Mars" at this new DigitalSpace site featuring virtual
Mars Exploration Rovers moving about a digital Martian landscape.
.jpg)
At our company, DigitalSpace,
we are currently engaged in several contracts with NASA to build
virtual environments that will aid in the planning of future missions
and in the management of the International Space Station.
Lastly, what groups are organizing to bring the medium of Virtual
Worlds together?
.jpg)
One organization, The
Contact Consortium, founded in March of 1995, is perhaps the
earliest non profit community forum and R&D organization devoted
to the creation of inhabited, spatial, social Cyberspace. Its special
interest groups include VLearn3D,
dedicated to learning in shared spaces, Biota.org,
the Digital Biology Project, Oworld.org,
the open worlds project, SocioAnthro,
sociology and anthropology in visual virtual communities, vw-theater
for virtual worlds as performance spaces, and others. The Consortium
has held a dozen
conferences on topics of virtual worlds and has participated
in hundreds of events since 1995. The Consortium has an open, free
membership structure stressing bottom-up citizen involvement. Of
course there are many more recent academic, and industry groups
too including the Computer Game Developer's Conference and "game
labs" at various universities.
.gif)
DigitalSpace
Commons, founded by the author in August of 1995, is a research
and development company creating platforms, pioneering methods,
and serving as a focal point to aggregate a member community around
the coming next generation of virtual worlds and virtual communities.
Thanks for this tour through the medium of virtual worlds!
My pleasure!
Background on the author:
.jpg)
Brief Bio: Bruce
Damer, community organizer, author, speaker, cofounder of the
Contact Consortium
and a Principal of Digital
Space
Bruce Damer,
personal pages on the DigiBarn
Computer Museum, Weird Machines art, Burning Man, Rotary Rocket,
birth of the Desktop User Interface, Southern African Journeys,
and more: http://www.damer.com
Bruce Damer's aggregated online writings: http://www.digitalspace.com/papers/
.jpg)
Have a cosmic Cyberspace future!
| | |
