Who Counts?

Day 1

Non-Human Publishing

Wikipedia has bot users to up­date cat­e­gories and things. MediaWiki has no spe­cial in­ter­face to in­di­ci­ate that a user is non-hu­man. Cydebot is the most pro­lific ed­i­tor on Wikipedia at 5.1m ed­its.

We tend to think of Wikipedia as this big hu­man en­deav­our, but there’s ac­tu­ally lots of au­to­mated labour go­ing on.

Even good bots fight: The case of WIkipedia says that Wikipedia bots soem­times get into edit wars.

Publishing is thought of as hu­mans mak­ing some­thing pub­lic for other hu­mans, but it turns out WIkipedia bots and oth­ers also pub­lish stuff all the time. This is not hap­pen­ing in the fu­ture.

Automated writ­ing in the news busi­ness, like AP au­tomat­ing quar­terly earn­ings re­port ar­ti­cles, Washington post lo­cal sports cov­er­age. Interestingly the AP cov­er­age in­creases trad­ing — be­ing cov­ered in the pub­li­ca­tion helps com­pa­nies.

2016 flash crash (the pound dipped by 6% al­most in­stantly). Turns out it was al­go­rith­mic traders. With the AP thing, you can imag­ine a bot writ­ing a story, then bots trad­ing on that story us­ing sen­ti­ment analy­sis, then more sto­ries etc.

So, bots are en­tan­gled with hu­mans, and also each other. We also ar­guably pub­lish for bots by feed­ing data into them. See GPT-2.

Barthes: Deat of the au­thor

[Project Debater] An IBM pro­ject that chains to­gether a lan­guage model, lan­guage com­pre­hen­sion and knowl­edge graphs. Trained on Aristotle?

Day 2

BUreau of ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence

how do you feel about abor­tion it’s your views that mat­ter

can i get an abor­tion (gives )