 There we go. Good. This is meeting the world ops on Wednesday, November 10th, 2021. Almost said 2010. That was weird. And we're having very interesting time with our mute buttons. Go ahead Pete. Something I wish we had done for the past year or so is to... I used to do this once in a while. Put a note in the chat about what meeting this chat was. The more standard the better. So this would be OGM weaving the world 2021. So I guess this is motivated by... Mark and I had a lovely chat yesterday at Wiki Wednesday, Asia. And I'm excited about trying a new thing for Massive Wiki, which is not to use Git, but rather to use peer-to-peer file syncing, which has pluses and minuses. But anyway, so I came up with a good project for... Should I set up a Wiki? So I want to get a Wiki where a few more people are collaborating. And maybe I can get Mark and Bill and one or two more people collaborating on something. So I spent the night asleep wondering what that would be. So it was a bit of a fitful night's sleep, of course. But the one I came up with was... Excuse me. Well, I can't say it. I was going to swear. Go ahead. Say it. Swear in Turkish. Stuff that OGM says. So the rule is let's make a Wiki of like a bunch of the stuff that we hear over and over in OGM calls, right? The Thursday calls, the Tuesday calls, all the OGM at our most channels, all the Zoom chats from... So I've got a bunch of Zoom chats, right? The thing is a lot of the OGM calls are Jerry McCalsky, whatever, whatever. And some of those are OGM calls and some of them are not. So long story short, I wish there was a little tag in each chat thing where I could say, is this... I can have the bot say, is this an OGM chat or is this a random chat I had with Jerry that probably doesn't belong in the OGM chats? So in some sense, it'd be nice if your calendar event metadata carried over into all the Zoom media, meaning each of the Zoom files was tagged up with that kind of thing in metadata. And then we wouldn't have to have a... Not to replace human practices because we like human practices, but... I kind of... I half thought about that and I was asleep. So I didn't fully think about it, but you could cross check. The chat files are time stamped. So I could... I was in my sleep. I was trying to write some of the code for... Okay, there's a chat on Jerry's Zoom channel. Did this happen on Tuesday? And Jerry, you and I know that we have a separate thing on Tuesday. So I was like, well, okay. So then you'd have to like, figure out the time and, you know, make sure that it's the... They like, saving time and blah, blah, blah. Sounded like a mess. I've been watching and hoping to participate in Frodo Heglen's future of text office hours. And I've seen like a time code going along the bottom. And just kind of wondering about using a... So one of my backlog projects is using, you know, creating a video stream of the notes that I'm making as I'm making them and basically having, you know, a video stream of Jerry's brain as, you know, a panel in our Zoom presentation. And we can zoom in on that or out of that, but basically, you know, have metadata visually in Zoom stream. Black. That's interesting. Small YouTube pro tip. You've seen videos with chapters where you see a timeline and you see names over segments of the thing. Super easy to do. Basically, you put a timestamp that looks like this. First, you have to put a 0.0 colon 00 and any title you want, right? But it has to have 0.0 colon 00 at the start. And then you just do a bunch of them. So at two minutes and 34 seconds, we talked about squash, etc. And you just do that all in one row in the comments of the YouTube video. That's it. Just the comment section. In the description. The description. Sorry. That's right. Not the commentary back. The description field. And then you can put anything else you want in the description field too. It'll just find this as a block. And then it makes nice labels on your video. It's really cool. It's pretty sweet. Yeah. It's actually very simple, really easy to edit. You're not permanently altering the video or anything or meta tagging the video at all. It's just in the description field. You just gave me a JIRA ticket to create for the Internet Archive. How about that? I'd be great to be able to do something that easily for people who upload videos. Hey, Bentley. Hey, Hank. And Bentley, you have a pro tip for weaving the world. Yeah. I was listening to the Build.OGM call from a couple of days ago. And you were talking about kind of the steps in the process. So I just kind of want to step through what I was thinking and see if that resonates. So if you have all the normal picking a guest or everything like that and then Jerry's got a call and has a call with the guest. And then there's post-processing of that. Maybe that's the wrong term. The slight editing and posting of that document. I don't know whether you want to post it publicly or just to select group. And then we discussed about having a meeting where people can come together and do their own kind of mapping or weaving of items. And I also see that process as it could be synchronous or asynchronous. So some people may not make the meeting, but they may still watch the video and produce different results out of that. And then what I was kind of thinking of is that at some point in time later, like a month later or so, one of the artifacts would also be kind of like a compilation. I'd like to say video, but that just kind of showing the weaving as the video is going on and then linking out to all the different artifacts. And then also one of the artifacts that could come out of that or just before that, one of the weavings could be taking snippets of the video itself or a video and one of the artifacts or the creation of an artifact and putting segments of those out. And that would be part of the weaving. Yeah. And so there might also be kind of a the end result would be all these artifacts, this kind of summary video of it all woven together in a presentation. And then maybe many parts, small parts of that presentation that could be reasonable and shareable. And then I was thinking about the discussions about the feeds, you know, whether they should be separate or joint. I mean, ideally, I would like all of this, including not just the audio and video, but also the posting of the artifacts and the videos of the creation of the artifacts and the summary videos and kind of the compilation videos all be available in a filterable tagged feed that you could then subscribe to any part of it, which of course doesn't work in YouTube, but you know, we should probably have an analogous open RSS feed that's filterable. Anyway, so those are, that's kind of how I picture the process after listening to that conversation. Interesting. Thank you. When you subscribe to somebody on YouTube, does that bear any relation to RSS or is there anything like that happening behind the curtain, do we think? Or is that just YouTube's proprietary subscribe thing? I don't think it is. There are probably services that could turn a YouTube channel into an RSS feed. Yeah. Anybody else with additions to what Bentley suggested or comments or other thoughts? Certainly. Bentley, you have sort of your own scheduled meeting. Do you not? Is it something like? I participate in canonical debate lab. That's it, canonical debate lab. And what kinds of artifacts are available for canonical debate lab, either to the select members who are subscribing or the general public? We're not an example of the proper way of doing this, but we do post all of our meetings on a single YouTube channel. And then we also have an artifact of a glossary that we're putting together in Trello. And then every once in a while we're posting blog posts kind of with status updates. So those are the only artifacts we're creating at the moment. And then a white paper that hasn't been updated. Can we get to that from your Bentley Davis.com? I don't think I'd link out to that, actually. I have so much other stuff going on there. Polycanonicaldebatelab.com would be the best place to go. Thank you very much. But we also want to do better at creating artifacts and weaving into the world. Excuse me. And I like the idea of revisiting things. I like the idea of capsule summaries. One of the things, so I'm hoping to leave behind a woven trail all the time anyway. I'm hoping that as we do our work, call by call, you know, action by action, that we're basically leaving a rich path of connectivity between all these things. And that it's not separate by episode, but that each episode is like the fruiting body of the work as we metaphorically went over yesterday a bunch. And so when I go back to one of the calls that we've had, especially the last couple years, I'm busy taking notes. I add stuff afterward. I then connect back to previous calls if things make sense. And so I'm making a lot of those spanning links already. And then there's also this kind of like recursive interweaving, where when somebody else does something that you then link to and then look back to you. And then I think there's going to be very interesting little tangles of references in the middle of all this that if we were being strict and logical would probably be confusing. But I think it's going to be like messy in a good way because it means that we'll have sort of an overabundance of references to artifacts created and meaning making and all that kind of stuff. Anyone else thoughts on on the post post processing idea? Yeah. Depending on on what's available and what's being woven. I thought if there's a sort of online compilation that was Bentley's word, I guess, or a work in progress, a weaving a quilting, knotting all the things we talked about yesterday that different people could visit parts of it and see different things that let's say you being very close to it or some kind of editorial board being rather close to it didn't see and could suggest different lines of thinking or different ways of putting together the pieces. I'm just thinking that if how to add new perspectives from people who are interested but not as close as the editors, for example. Well, if we're doing this right the materials we're creating become useful for anybody out there who wants to comment and think. I mean, they become more public like Wikipedia pages are public and useful. Although Wikipedia pages may have zillions of inbound links, but we don't know because we don't have transclusion. We don't sort of work the web that way. But they're useful to a whole bunch of people out there. And one other thought because I missed the very beginning of the conversation, so I don't know if it was brought up. But if you do revisit people or you revisit the call a month later to ask the people who had been involved in the call what they've done with the knowledge or the insights or the ideas that were dealt with in the call. So that's also I guess a kind of recursive interweaving. There's that. Yeah, you're bringing up. You're reminding me of the Kula Ring rings in the Pacific basically from Mouse's book, The Gift. And he talks about how Turbry and Islanders basically have gift exchange. And the idea is that the artifact, like the men exchange arm bracelets and the women exchange necklaces and the men's exchanges go clockwise and the women's exchanges go counterclockwise. And there's a big trip over open ocean to get to the next island to go have the ceremony. And the idea at each ceremony is to tell the story of what happened while you have the bracelet while it was in your custody. And so those are ritual gift artifacts that are moving in a circle in order to bind the communities on purpose. And so we could in some sense treat artifacts we're creating as those kinds of gifts and tell some of the stories of what I did with it, what happened to it, things like that. It gets overwhelming pretty quickly because there are going to be a lot of artifacts and a lot of things, but we could call out notable ones. We could find a way to pay attention. But the really nice aspect of that, one really nice aspect of that, is just the ritual aspect of it. And the idea of paying special attention, special homage to some thing that we hold in common. And I think that might be really powerful. Yeah, I like that way you're telling it now too. Both the ritual and the content are important. Yeah, I agree. Anyone else with thoughts? Here's Kula Reigns. So let me put this in the chat. There we go. So Pete and I did some work yesterday on a few different things, including, and I'll do a little screen share, including putting the transcript. So we recorded a dry run call with Ken Homer for Weaving the World. And haven't done the fungus call that attaches to it. Would like to do that in the next couple of days. So I'll send an invite for that. But we dropped the video into Descript. And is everybody vaguely familiar with Descript? I don't expect anybody except Pete to actually be really familiar with it. But it's a power tool for creating transcripts and editing podcasts and video podcasts. And it makes my little Mac just glow bright red with like exhaustion. In fact, Pete and I were laughing because we were in Zoom. We were doing some screen, I was doing some screen sharing Descript and then went to my brain to try to look something up and it just wouldn't swap in like the brain wasn't even working. And then I would double click on something in Descript to try to make it do something. And there'd be a 10 second lag. So anyway, it's a beefy app that needs an awful lot of compute power. But it's insanely powerful. And you can see here that there's the audio at the bottom, the recording visible on the side. And then as you highlight a stretch and hit the space bar, it'll play just that stretch of the video so that you can make corrections. And one of the realizations I think from us working together is how much work it's going to be just to have a clean transcript, just to have a clean transcript of a call that's going to be really non-trivial. And in some sense, tell me if you think differently, but clean transcript seems like a good ante for a good podcast. And I'm modeling here, Jim Rutt's podcast has really nice transcripts and a web page that says, click here to play the audio of the podcast. You can do all of that. That seems to be the starting point for doing this properly. So sorry. So it's kind of impressive the amount of work. And then also, the second you start doing things like trimming out ums and other sort of comments, which Descript does automatically. So it has a lovely little process that'll filter. And you'll see that here that there's an um that is in light gray because we ran this process against this file. It called out 144 or so instances of ums and us. And then nukes them. And you can nuke them destructively or just hide them. So the audio is kind of still there. But now you've changed all the timings in the whole recording. So there's, if we're going to have offsets into the recordings, we need to be careful about and consistent about how we're editing the recordings and at what stage we edit the recordings and all of that kind of stuff. And all of this sort of fits into whether or not there's an intro segment that we're going to glue onto the front of all the episodes, which is a common intro, or whether I will speak an intro at the start of every episode so that just when when we begin talking is actually the zero mark for that, for that episode. So all of that we were kind of working through. And then I'll show one other thing. And then I'll pass the mic to Pete. If you see my chrome in a yellow frame that I created a new Gmail account for OGM Forge is what it's called. So OGM Forge at Gmail is now a new account, which I, which is shareable. So it's, so I won't be divulging my personal emails. And this is a way for people to, for, for anybody who's helping with Weaving the World to kind of collaborate on stuff. And I created a simple spreadsheet called Weaving the World Production and began outlining, obviously this is just a baby, a baby start, but began outlining what the steps are. So, you know, Zoom sends me an email that says, hey, you've got a recording and some files, then forward that to somewhere probably to crop. I don't know. And then, you know, download the files, add the video to the script, edit in the script, export the script to other things, and then there's going to be a lot more steps here who did it. And then this is the date of the dry run call, the dry run Weaving the World episode. So, you know, stretch out indefinitely here to the right as each episode goes out. And then each of these cells is, this is a checklist basically, did we do that step? Right. And then as we elaborate the process, we can sort of add things because I think very quickly, this is going to get really confusing. So I use, I use a video editing app called ScreenFlow. And one of the things that's really useful to do early in ScreenFlow is to turn to let it get rid of background noise background sounds in your audio track. If you don't do that before you start cutting out the audio track, you are hosed. And so must remember early to do this and then this and then this and we're trying to sort of work our way through all of that. Pete? I think it's worth thinking through the clean transcript thing. You mean the value of the necessity of? Yeah. And I'm, you know, I'm not sure that I'm advocating one way or the other, but it's a big decision. So on the one hand, it's easy to solve with just money or time. So you can pay $2 a minute. You can pay to script or somebody else. You can pay somebody $2 a minute to get a clean transcript. You know, $2 a minute of submitted audio or video, meaning if you give them a 90 minute video and it turns into 50 minutes of edited, you're paying $2 a minute for the 90. $180. Right. And, you know, in the grand scope of things, if you have decent listenership and, you know, you have a, you end up with a valuable asset and things like that, that's, it sounds like a lot of money, but it's, it's not if you, you know, if you've got the right value flow. You know, so there's, you might, you might take internal labor or, you know, friend labor or something like that and trade off some of the hard dollars for time, but it's, it's still a significant either time or money investment. And it's like a 41. What do we think the thumbnail is for like four to one? Yeah, Wendy was Wendy Elford. Yes. So for every minute of audio to process, it's probably four minutes worth of work to wind up with a clean trans, a clean transcript and four to one might be a very clean transcript, might be a really good one. Sorry, but also for expert transcriptions. So yeah, multiply that by, you know, 1.5 if you're not a good transcriptionist. So, you know, it's like, so it's solvable, but I think that's also a fairly hard constraint. You know, you can't get around the fact that the machines can do, you know, 92%, 94%, 95% or whatever, but you have to have a human listening at, you know, 0.25x real time to, to actually make it, you know, clean. So it makes you, it makes you think about the value of the clean transcript, you know, there's, it's, it's certainly something that I would want for something political figure important political figure is saying. I love that Ted talks, I actually don't listen to Ted talks, I read them super fast. And I love that about Ted talks. But at the same time, you know, that the if, if what you need the transcript for is things like search, and some category stuff and things like that, you know, it's, you know, it doesn't have to be 100%, 95%, it's probably good enough. So I can reflect on this in the context of the 1028 Thursday call that I, that I knowledge woe, knowledge casted craft, whatever you want to call it. So in that I did, I ended up kind of by process of necessity or not wanting to spend $2 a minute or whatever, because I wanted to do the process of spulunking more than I wanted it to come out with a perfect transcript. It ended up maybe, so I guess another alternative to a clean transcript is a rough transcript, the machine one, that somebody's gone over and picked out the important parts. And it wasn't too hard for me to, you know, to notice something that was completely ungrammatical, or somebody's starting to say something, right. And, and you can see, you can't see if the thought quite got finished, because the transcription is not right. But it's pretty easy to go in and kind of craft out of that the things that you care about and make a list of them. And then it's not too hard to kind of spot check the transcript and go, you know, this should have been, this should have been Buckminster fuller instead of full or something like that. And you just fix a number of those, right? And proper nouns get mistranslated all the time, so fix all those. Or obscure words, you know, we come across obscure words and no damn things. So, you know, you fix, I don't know, 60, 80% of those, probably not 100%, because if you want to do 100%, you have to do it fine grained. But you if you fix, you know, 70% of them. And at the same time, maybe make wiki links out of them or whatever. So there's a there's a value add to actually looking through the transcript and correcting it and spot correcting it. You don't need the whole sentence to be perfect. You actually do want the wiki link to be perfect. But then, wow, you've added a wiki link. So if you pay somebody $2 a minute to get a transcript, the humans haven't tagged anything or labeled anything or highlighted anything or wiki linked anything. But if you do rough transcript, scan through and wiki link stuff and correct the wiki links, you end up with something that's imperfect, but you know, arguably, at least is valuable in the right context as a perfect transcript. So I think it's worth thinking through, you know, the use cases and the audiences and the one thing about that that second imperfect, but, you know, more contextual, more more contextual transcript. If you're judging yourself, if you're, if you're being judged on beauty, it's less beautiful. Definitely. So and, you know, if you're using if, if you're, if your audience is using beauty is a proxy for fitness, you know, they might say, well, these people don't know what they're doing. They make crap. But if you can demonstrate that they, you know, the imperfect thing is actually fine the way I mean, so I guess there's an explanation phase around that, right? Hey, look, I know this is imperfect. And we would love to have you donate some time and make it more perfect. And we've made the workflow so that you can go in and and mark stuff and send us an email or correct it yourself or whatever. But we're okay with the fact that it's imperfect, because we did a value add thing and we didn't spend a lot of time making it perfect. Yeah, you're making me think, Pete, that it would be in a fantasy future. It would be really cool if we had a functioning hive where there were some people who loved doing this kind of thing. And if we could kind of pick the carcass clean, so that by the time the call was done, an initial rough transcript, because there's live, you know, there's live transcribing that happens. And you've used it on some of our meetings and then copied and pasted, like, Hey, this is what this is what Hank just said, like five minutes ago, boom, boom. And it's in the chat. So there's that could be done during and if it could be poured into a shared document, then anybody who feels like it can go in and say, oops, got caught this got this, you know, doing the correcting. And we could share that load as anybody feels like going in and doing that part of it. And then if nobody's doing it, then we have a crap transcript for that call. But but that's interesting, because because in that process, we could also be larding the links from the chat right over onto the text that that's relevant. I mean, like, like the extra value added that is more than cleaning a transcript that you just talked about that you did for for the call you craft is perfect. And that and we want lots of that we want that as close to soon as possible. Right. So if there's if there was a way for us to sort of swarm the carcass, so to speak, really bad use of metaphor there, but still, or like, you know, like piranhas, no, wait, wait, that's not good either. I'm heading the wrong direction here. But that that sounds interesting, but hard to do that. That sounds like hard, hard to implement, but fun. Also, and I don't know what the what the rules are here. YouTube seems to spontaneously generate automatic transcripts for a bunch of videos. And I don't know when they decide to and when they don't. But sometimes I'll go look and it'll be like, Hey, there's a nice transcript here, sometimes in multiple languages. Right. And maybe it's with about popularity. Don't know. They've got some algorithm behind the curtain where they're they're just running their speech recognition system against videos and making a pretty reasonably not bad transcript, which I don't think has speaker identification, but has good. I could be wrong about that even. It doesn't speak. Yeah, it doesn't have sentences either. Okay. It's it's made for captions. And it works. It's it's good. But it's it's again, you know, it'll stumble over the interesting words. Yeah, the words that you would want to Bentley totally agree. I mean, this this is part of the weaving. This this is actually getting our fingers into the fabric of what's being said. Right. So it makes it makes a lot of sense. That auto translation thing, by the way, I was probably a flotilla call or something like that. It's like, oh, wow, it has, you know, it has a has subtitles. And then it's like, oh, wow, it has like 60 languages of subtitles. It translated it, you know, once it's gotten in English, then it's easy for them to make it into all the, you know, welcome to the 21st century, the top 60 languages. Yeah, yeah. Really, what I liked about Pete's the description was also that it's not like a one and done thing, or it just made me remember that this should be on a wiki, right? And people should be editing it as we go forward. And you know, I often would like the chance that I'm the first to listen to an interview and I can go in and take out some moms and Oz and oh, and I can put it a wiki link and, you know, and then someone can come in and they'd clean up a little more. So even if it's not a swarm, if it's just kind of part of the process, and people and you know, there's a clear understanding that hey, this is a community resource up in and make a few tweaks. So in some future likely world, but it might be 10 years out, we could have a multi language conversation that would be transcribed live and would show up in each other's ears in our native language or as a as a text transcript in our native language. And we could probably manage that pretty well. I mean, right now you can take your phone with Google Translate, leave it on the table in front of you and have a conversation with somebody and I don't know how many languages, but a lot. And it works like the damn thing actually works beautifully. And if you bought Google Pixel Bud earbuds, you can actually do that in your ear and be a little bit of board because Google Assistant and all those features are basically available in that way. So that's interesting. It's just a little out of reach right now. Anybody want to comment on sort of the hive live weaving and transcribing and perfecting of the transcript? Give it an experiment, give it a try. Emily is, you know, talking about it as a participatory thing and there's, there is, there is a deeper, when you, when you instead of just skimming something, if you actually get into the text and you're fixing things and look, you know, and figuring out where you're going to put a link and stuff like that, you get more out of, out of the material. You get out of sync with the light. What's going on actually in the conversation? Well, different, different thing. What I'm saying is in the process of, of mulching the material, you get a lot of value out of that. It's a active reading, active reading gets you more, you know, more participation in the ideas as they float past and what they mean and how they might link to other ideas and things like that. It's, it's, it's an art and a skill that we ought to do more of rather than just agree, but this is a behavior change request. Certainly I do this, Jerry does this, you're doing this, possibly many others, but I think, you know, that that design of the situation of participation is greatly important and, you know, basically to be very clear that we're asking for change in the default behavior of listeners. And I certainly would say it differently. I wouldn't say a request or asked. I would, I would put it the other way. There's a different way to, to participate with this material or, you know, absorb this material. So it's a, it's a philosophy and an alternate philosophy. I would say, you know, I'm not going to ask somebody, Hey, I want to make sure that when you read this, you fix, you know, at least three things like in there, done that and it's not that much fun. Yeah, that's not exactly what I'm trying to say. Well, the request ask thing, it's like, I'm not going to, you know, you're going to get more out of this if you participate with it. You know, it's your choice to participate or not. Two things. One is I find that by taking notes in my brain, I'm flipped into system to thinking all the time about anything I'm paying attention to, I pay more attention, I'm digesting, I'm then weaving and linking, like, like, I go, I go from reading a post directly into what's the context, how does this connect, do I need to look this up, et cetera. So I'm, so the, the act of actively annotating and note-taking with my brain and with whatever tool, I'm sure this happens for you, Mark and Mx, does that, just shoves you into it. A second thought is, and this is in some other idealized future, if this were a thou, we could offer rewards for anybody who goes and mulches with us and, you know, crabs or does whatever, and their activities could be sort of traced and rewarded with a currency that's internal to the, to the economy. And that would be like, uh-huh. And how, you know, you went and spent an hour or two upgrading and weaving the transcript of an event. Awesome. You know, here are your, here are your fungus coins, your fungus tokens. And that would be, that's actually, there are parts of that that are out of reach, but there are parts of that that we could implement, like, this month, if that was the direction we wanted to go on. So I will make a comment on a similar task that we've been considering at the archive for quite a while. So when somebody uploads a book, or, you know, the Internet Archive scans a book, there's a process, a lot of processes that go on. What can I think about the name of the process? But basically an abbey file, which is basically a weird XML file of the OCR of whatever images we've scanned that make up a book, are linked to the book. And we've basically linked, we don't show PDFs or ebook formats. We basically have JPEG two images of each page of a book. And we've gone and linked the text to the positions of words in those image files. And we now have added a read aloud using the browser read aloud to hopefully help people who either want to listen to the book in their car or have print disabilities and help make this much more accessible. Unfortunately, the OCR, as we all know, is not that great. And we're trying to figure out ways to basically allow people to participate with checking to fix the OCR text on a page so that the read aloud experience can be great, much better. And certainly we're just limited by resources like everybody else. But a very similar process that we're trying to do. Thank you for adding that. And it just lights the bulb in my head that a lot of what we're sitting here talking about is stuff that I think is on the archives roadmap in some sense. Like wouldn't it be cool if the archive were adding value to documents rather than just scanning and storing? And you're already adding value to documents, for example, to make room for people with disabilities or other kinds of needs in order to enrich the origin files so that those people have better, easier access, which is what you just described, which is fabulous. But a piece of the rest of this is also mechanisms that could be the way, like civilization could be employed earning crypto tokens from the archive, improving and weaving the content that is archived. And introducing a whole new set of problems and mistakes and spin. But because when you're just sitting in the background archiving, it's very different from being Wikipedia, which is a battleground Wikipedia has turned into a complete battleground, right? Kinda sorta. And I'm sure that the archive's not not not not a battleground. I sometimes I don't know how much to say about because the power is above me and everybody's above me. Will you be will you be struck down right now as we watch you if you say the wrong thing? I will be asked politely to curtail because we're being sued. Okay, yeah, lawyers. But, you know, certainly we do care about copyright, we do care about, you know, I care about copyright. But where did my train of thought go? Oh, sorry, I hijacked it. Right. No problem. What was your question? Isn't this sort of kind of on the archives roadmap? This conversation? Brewster has a wonderful way of saying things. And I appreciate that. One of the impetuses for the D web involvement of the Internet Archive is that we want a web that's not creepy. You know, we don't want people looking at us, you know, we don't want to and, you know, turning our behavior into profit for them without our knowing about it, the, you know, asymmetry of power for people who have, you know, huge machines. The other term is, you know, when we go into the Internet Archive, it feels like you're there alone. It feels like a lonely place. And there's millions of people, you know, who are on the archive. You just don't know it because you can't see through the aisle and see them. Exactly. And we want to make it feel less lonely. That's cool. That's really cool. And I've talked about, you know, the archive had been, you know, up until the point that I joined about three years ago, all about bits and, you know, how do we basically create the Library of Alexandria, you know, let's do all kinds of things, figure out how to get in, microfilm, figure out how to get in video games. But they've done an amazing job of basically creating and working with artists and coders to have JavaScript emulators of old Z Zilog chips to, you know, be able to emulate games in your browser. It's astounding. Now we're focused on becoming the world's, the Internet's library. And the notion is bits out. And I'm trying to push bits through, i.e. bits through minds, you know, bits through fingers, bits through eyes, you know, where, where, how do we get basically the realization that, again, there's this paradox, all knowledge is social, but also all knowledge is individual. All knowledge is unhappy in its own unique way. One more time. All knowledge is unhappy in its own way. Sorry. All families are, all happy families are happy the same way and all unhappy families are, I forget what the, I think it's Tolstoy. They're unhappy in different ways. Yes. So all knowledge is, is unhappy in different ways. Anyway, that's, that's trying to answer your question. There's a heck of a lot of, of different and varied kinds of things that the archive is doing. I just happened to be on the UX team to try and improve the user experience of, at the moment, books, music. But, you know, we, we weave. And so I try to, you know, connect with the other parts. Thanks, Mark. That's super interesting. I had the strange experience of last night, deciding to watch Ready Player One. So I rented it. I've got to finish it tonight. I got about two thirds of the way through Ready Player One, which I highly recommend because it's kind of way of the moment. And then, and then I set it down. I checked my email and Heather Cox Richardson's email had come in and last night's was like a gem and on fire and really like pissed off about the current situation. And the transition from the crisis moments in RP1 into the Heather's newsletter was kind of weird and pleasing in some terrifying way, because I was like, oh, shit, we're kind of in that world. And I was just sort of reading the dramas of people being subpoenaed by the January 6th Commission and this and that that she was reporting on as if it were a multiplayer immersive, you know, ARG, alternate reality game. And we were sort of in an alternate reality game and all these things like blended together in my head and I went to sleep with that going on. So, and I highly recommend Heather Cox Richardson's newsletter. She's brilliant and a great, really good historian, but also, you know, on a near daily basis is generating really thoughtful posts with some links at the end. Okay, so what do we do with what we do with all these interesting with this bag of interesting features and capacities. I'm really interested in trying to prototype test the hive, the swarming the swarming of the transcript, where it's not just to perfect the transcript, because Pete, it makes a ton of sense to me that we could pay money to make a perfect transcript, but half of the stuff that we're interested in doing to the transcript, which you did for when you crowd the call wouldn't actually, none of that would have been done, right, because there isn't a professional service that would know to do that. By the by, just as we are imagining story threaders and context weavers and map whispers and whatever else, this act of weaving, maybe this is what context weavers do. Maybe this is a piece of the context weaver actual process. I'm going to switch locations, but I'm still here. It would be a saleable marketable service. I think so too. Anybody else thoughts? There's a French philosopher who is very interesting and I'll try to find his site later, but he tried to start a school and, you know, he kind of had two levels of students post-PhD French philosophers and high school students, and the high school students were basically encouraged to engage the philosophical conversation by creating metadata. And I should do my research before I talk, because my brain, this one, is a little more scattered these days, but I'll find it and put it in the... Do you have a name or something? Was this DuBord? Who did you say it was? I get my earbuds out of my ears. He's a French philosopher. He basically grew up poor, spent a lot of time in prison. That's most of them, isn't it? Sorry, just kidding. Just kidding. I'll find it and come back with it. Thank you for that. So, Pete, I think you put on the table early in the call, hey, should we bother with a clean transcript? Should we just go with a rough, whatever rough means, whatever we can get, put that up and just like keep going. And the degree to which trying to edit and clean up the transcript yesterday was demoralizing, for me, indicates that that would probably be a good strategy, because I think we can get there, but we're going to have to throw money at it or time or something. And I would love to figure out how to throw the crowd at it. And it would be really, I mean, there's a whole separate conversation about if we were a Dow, then we could actually reward people for the activity of context reading, and then we could stand up a context weaver's guild and like that would be really pretty exciting. That would really be exciting. And crowd plus context reading plus some other goodies would be a service that could be offered for anybody to enhance their conversations and their meetings and their events, right? Pete, were you at the big hook where Greg Ellen and others recorded the entire event on video and then created a chat transcript that was, I think, time to the video afterward? Like, it was a nice thing. They kind of think so, yeah. They did a bunch of work that actually made the event pretty available. It probably, I think that was also Annie McFadeal, right? Because he had the system that was doing that in submarines. Yeah. Yeah. That could be. Anyway, so I was sad that that didn't happen more, I mean, or that we didn't, you know, didn't keep using it. But it was really interesting because at the end of an event, we had not just sort of a video of the event, but actually sort of you could follow the chat along with the video. They were synchronized and a bunch of other kind of things that were happening. I don't remember what else was happening, but it was more than that. I don't think they were doing a transcript, were they? I don't think I remember seeing a transcript. Yeah, I don't think so. Although I think it was modeled after the Huey submarine stuff. So in that system, you could click a button or whatever and, you know, say, I just saw, you know, and yeah. And who is the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute? So it may have been that kind of thing where. Armacon. And sorry, it was Bernard Stigler, the economist. Mark, you're frozen and muted. You did. I think the act of unfreezing, the act of unmuting. There you go. You're back, but you're still muted. I raised my hands in frustration with my internet. So if that was a gesture, meaning I wanted to communicate, that wasn't it? Okay. Okay. Anger noted. Jerry, you or I should ping any machine and talk about experience logging. Bentley, thanks for being here. Any last thoughts before you bounce? No, sounds great. I'll watch the video for the rest. Cool. Thanks. We'll wrap pretty soon. Anyone else with thoughts on how to move forward? So go ahead. So if you're tempted to go the imperfect, I think there's a couple. One of them is to realize that the crowd is not going to be very crowded. And to figure out what happens with that. I think another thing is I probably, I wouldn't even wait to make a doubt to give people rewards for, I would pay people to do context mining or, you know, crabbing or knowledge, whatever. So then who do I pay and not pay? If I'm asking for anybody to come in with any tool and do some weaving, right? Which is part of what I'd like to do for the post calls. Am I paying everybody now for their time on the call? If no. Okay. How do I say you get paid and you don't then? If it were me. Yeah. I would do it. And I guess I would do it massive wiki. I'm trying to think one part of me says, you know, what you want to do is put the transcript in a HackMD document and then let whoever edit it basically whenever they want. But then HackMD documents are not quite massive, massive wiki things, although you can kind of bridge them brilliantly. And then if you're editing in HackMD and you put a wiki link, it doesn't go anywhere until it's in, you know, obsidian or whatever. So there's, there's a, there's a hinkiness there. But, but anyway, someday, someday we'll have a real time editable massive wiki. And then life will be wonderful. But anyway, I think what I would do is it's some, some combination of HackMD ish media massive wiki ish. And, and I think I wouldn't just say, Hey, whoever wants to play around with this, I would say, um, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm willing to pay X dollars or X, you know, X tokens for, um, I guess for a chunk of text, I was going to say for an hour, but you don't want that. You want to say a chunk of text, right? If you can take, you know, a thousand words and, and clean it up and, and link stuff or 10,000 words or whatever, you know, I'm willing to pay you X dollars. So, um, so, you know, so I think people would apply to do that. They would do the work, they would get paid or, or not, based on whether or not they did it. So, um, so not to, not to dig in on that, there's the question of how the work gets done. And it doesn't, it's not going to magically happen because you, you set up the collaboration tools. You're going to have to do a bit of a forcing function. Um, either create barn raising parties where everybody does it together as a social activity, which is the right way to do it. I don't, I don't have any hopes that that will ever happen, but in some perfect, Pete lives in a place where instead of building barns, people like build collaborative knowledge documents, you know, and, and, um, that Pete is happy and, and feels, you know, loved and warm and, and goes to bed and people sleep every night instead of thinking about how to code stuff instead. Um, so anyway, the barn raising, you know, it's not going to happen just because you, you know, if you build it, they won't come. Yeah, you're going to have to get people in the door and doing the work. So that's one part of it. Um, another part of it is, um, there needs to be an explanatory superstructure around the fact that the transcripts are, we feel more perfect than a, uh, a dead sterile, you know, exact representation of the text. So instead of saying, oh, we made a crappy transcript and, you know, I, I hope you like it. Um, which is kind of where I've been with my things. Um, uh, it really needs to be, we need to put some work into expressing that differently. Right. Um, we have a participatory, uh, transcript, which is more valuable than a word for word transcript that came out of, you know, um, uh, mechanical turkey, uh, keyboards. Um, and the reason it's more valuable is right, there should be like, you should have a half of an episode on that, right? And then that should be written up and in places where people read it, right? So there's a whole contextual cultural thing, um, uh, that you need to explain to people that's not going to be obvious coming in the door, right? Um, so it's, it's kind of like you have the hippie yurt situation going on and, and people cruise by and they like the hippie yurt or, you know, the, the shiny, you know, the shiny Walmart, you know, which am I going to choose? And because I watch TV and I live in the US, I'm going to choose the shiny, pretty Walmart that looks clean and pretty and doesn't have any cultural value to me and is strip mining my, you know, but so you need to tell them that, you know, the hippie yurt is actually the place to be. And, you know, and, uh, uh, and here's why, and here's why this is more attractive and more wonderful and more pleasant and, and tell all your friends to come to the hippie yurt instead of going to the, the big box. Um, I particularly like the idea that, uh, an imperfect but heavily improved transcript is actually a, a more interesting artifact than a pretty polished transcript that, that, that the adding of links context and even sort of alternate opinions sort of inserted into different places, uh, is kind of where we're aiming. That's, that's like a, that's like a good piece of the fungus right there. Right. That's just that act of a contextualizing and weaving into existing, you know, into weaving, weaving the conversation into the world is a, is a thing that doesn't get done often enough and is really interesting all by itself. And then layering on top of that, yes, but I think something totally different here and just making that available, but not let, not letting it obscure the actual transcript is also interesting because then you're overlaying a whole bunch of narrative threads, narrative strands that, that sort of lay across the basic transcript, which is placing it into a larger context of logics, narratives, reasoning, other sorts of things, which is super cool as well. So all of that feels very immediate to me as a big fungus kind of product as, as like what we want. That that's really tasty to me. Mark. I want to highlight what I'm going to post later on CSC from the Google translation of this French website. I'll just try to read a short part of this into this call. This work is part of what ours industrialists calls a process of trans individuation. This concept is a result of development from the philosophy of Gilbert Simon Don. This philosopher posits that an individual only becomes what he is. That is to say does not become psychically individual, except in so far as he participates in the development of a social group, the latter constituting what Simon Don calls collective individuation. The philosophy of ours industrialists is that collective individuation is the fruit of a coindividuation of psychic individuals who, by coindividuation, contribute to the emergence and metastabilization of a process of transindividuation characterized by the fact that individuals belonging to a social group refer to it as their common and relatively stable horizon. And it goes on. But basically, there's a note about, you know, Nietzsche calls some of this process rumination or ruminating. And again, I'll get this into CSC a little bit later today. Rumination is great. Oops, I just quit my brain. That's bad. Let me stop sharing and stop confusing people. Rumination is a great word here, too. Our separate topic. Make sure you look at the accounting for everything experience logging PDF. I just posted a link for it. I like it, I think. And if I'm going to avoid putting more carbon in the atmosphere, it takes me a while to walk to work. So I'm going to. And yeah, thank you. And we've actually gone well through this call. So I'm thinking we fold our call. I just want to check out and say two things. One, I want to say I like the idea of the imperfect transcript for a number of reasons, one of which even like so like some let's say I just wanted to go in and take out the ums. By being in that space, I may learn how to do other things. I may be, oh, I didn't see this. It's like a natural triggering might happen just by the fact that I'm in that space doing something, you know, that to somebody else might sound very menial, but it's a way for other people to participate. And the other thing is I think it would just be a whole fascinating project in and of itself. If like what you're talking about, the idea of having a Dow, what Pete's talking about, if you had a separate board or a Dow, even if it's not formed yet, that's going to deal with how the funding gets dispersed, you decide how much is going to get budgeted to that, but then have that board figure it out with the people that show up. I think filming that would be fascinating. And you might get other people who are working in that field that want to participate just because they want to be able to study and set it up. Yeah, yeah. So I when John Boerth forecast me as OGM a Dow six months ago, that got me down a whole train of thinking that I was always like, yeah, interesting, interesting. This conversation lights up like, oh, okay, we could actually do the act of weaving the world and feeding the fungus and reward people for it with our own sort of cryptocurrency. And that would be really interesting and that would make a lot of sense. And then and then something I've had a separate train of thought along, we could take snapshots of this process, including the early early rough drafts and ugly transcripts and naked whatever and Jerry's brain and like what looks like Windows 95, we could take snapshots of that and put them in the world as NFTs. And basically, whatever proceeds came from those NFTs could go back into the community to fund their activities and start actually creating, you know, real value to pay people who want to do context weaving, because for, you know, if we if we float a token and it doesn't exchange for anything, it's just it just fake money internally. But if we actually, if other people start paying for NFTs with with things that are more, more fungible, for the non fungible with more fungible, then like values starts flowing through the whole system. Well, I guess what I'm saying, because that sounds like really big, what I'm saying is instead of doing the whole thing, get the budget for, you know, post production and hand it over to, you know, a board of who's going to deal with that. And then let them work on that full time, how they're going to do and find people who want to focus on that particular piece of the puzzle. Agreed. Agreed. You just lit up a larger, a larger picture in my head too. I love that. Yes, to Stacy and yes to Dow. The I lost the link to the investing with friends. So I posted it separately. While it's not in the thing, this post from Andreessen Horowitz talking about friends with benefits, which is a doubt is like, Oh my God, this should, this should be OGM, you know, this is what so friends with benefits is this, it's kind of a social club, a cultural club, it's, you know, it and it, and it's, so the other thing is you click on the link to FWB and you go look at their help wanted ads and they've got like three or four positions for, you know, real people and they're hiring because they have an internal economy, right. And they can do stuff with the, so it's like, Oh my gosh. So both quick is the one who told me about friends with benefits for the first time sometime ago, and he's been in it for a while. And part of the reason he's in it is that I think a piece of it is basically funding art. And he, John lives at the intersection of art and technology, that's kind of the thing he loves. And then here is the post from A to Z, the pictures, but the pictures show this is this is the post. And I think this post leads to a bunch of other sub posts that kind of explain it or I'm thinking of one of the other ones nearby. But anyway, there's a whole bunch of material out there that's trying to explain what this is and how it works. Why your group chat could be worth millions. This is this is exciting to me thinking back of the you know, early economic experiences in Florence and in the coffee houses in England, where people basically getting together for mutual benefits, insurance societies, basically, you know, different societies was their terms and, you know, the early the early banks or just people getting together and and figuring out how to trust each other. And dows didn't make sense to me until right now. And one of my problems with cryptocurrency and tokens and the trustless blockchain economy is that mostly it's the removal to arm's length of human relationships. Mostly it's the like, hey, we've got algorithms now so I don't need to figure out whom to trust because the algorithms are unbreakable bloody, bloody, bloody, bloody block. But if you start to reenter society and use dows to track and change and sort of reward, and there's a real danger here of creating explicit rewards for what is implicit, what should be implicit reward, right? There's a big danger of monetizing the incommensurate or the unmonetizable here, but but it's super interesting. And then one thing I was really struck with was a whole bunch of people are loving this world of dows and NFTs and all that because when you've bought into a currency of a particular dow, then you get to attend velvet rope parties because if you have X number of tokens in the currency, you are suddenly in the social club and you're on their discord server. And it felt to me like a whole bunch of like wealthy people starved for attention and being in social circles, who were like, awesome, we've replaced the New York nightlife scene with its velvet rope with a new velvet rope, which is all these NFT clubs. Status discrimination, certainly. Total status discrimination. I'm like, that's really fucked up. I don't like that at all. You know, that's gonna happen. And I've not been in any of these. So I'm making judgments from outside, but it really smelled like that. It's like, gosh, we love to associate like this. And now we have this way of associating. I'm like, behind its own little velvet rope. Can I turn that around? Yes, please do. Please do. Taking it away from rich board people and bringing it down to high school students. I don't know if people in OGM have access to high school students, but I would think one of the one of the interesting things that we've in the world could do is bring these type of conversations into the world of the youth. And to the extent that things are said or written in appear in a transcript that are not understandable for the youth, then you're opening another very interesting set of conversations. What did they mean by this? And if the subjects are interesting enough, I could imagine, you know, kids who, I mean, kids are spending so much time online with nonsense. Maybe they'd like to spend some time online with sense. And what I say, do people have access? I mean, I don't know, I don't have any kids, but I mean, there's probably a lot of people who have teenage kids in OGM or friends with teenage kids. And I totally think that high schoolers looking for interesting things to do ought to be in this world doing these kinds of things and helping us fix the world. That'd be fantastic. Mark, you need to walk. So thank you. And we're about to wrap the call. Yeah. And some high school kids are basically volunteering for the side project started by Aaron Schwartz of the Internet Archive called Open Library. So Open Library from the Music Genome Project has started a book genome project. And some high school kids are helping out basically trying to put all the world's books, you know, metadata for all the world's books online with a very nascent crowdsourcing process. Interesting. Yeah. Just not, you know, not anywhere close to the size of many other crowdsourcing projects. Yeah. Thanks. Open Book Genome Project. Thank you. That's super awesome. Okay. So this all feels much larger than we can bite off. Pragmatically, pragmatically, I think what this means is let's post a good enough transcript on a web page. Pete, let's figure out how to make Prove, take a file and drop it into a page. What I think I'd like to do is create a directory on the, create a weaving the world directory on OGM Wiki or a separate base, I don't know which, that is a whole placeholder for things like pages that have transcripts and links to audio files and other sorts of things. So that those are kind of not on a Google site. And the Google site can just point to these pages and say, hey, all our calls are over here. And then that builds a set of web pages, which can look like massive. I think that would be, I think that would work fine, because then we don't have to worry about uploading and working through Google sites. That can just be the place to draw up web pages. And, you know, I have a few pages I need to put on Google site on the, on the weaving the world site anyway, in order to say, hey, if you're going to be a guest, please look at this page as background for how to look good. And, you know, what we're doing and what this is and all that kind of stuff. But those are things I just need to do. But we can kind of, I think we can blend a massive site with the Google site pretty easily. That doesn't sound like a big challenge. But if, but if Crab can then drop, you know, well, let's figure out what a dirty transcript looks like. Does a dirty transcript not have ums and us? I think I would take them out. Yeah. And then we can, and then we can easily clean up the proper nouns that we seek is, you know, that's a quick pass. And then maybe not a lot more than that. And then to see, and then to figure out who and how and whether to motivate the actual context weaving. But that sounds like a starting point. Cool. And that sort of sounds, that sounds like the meta work part of a fungus call, right? Because the other part of the fungus call would be to actually focus on the content of the original call and then do the weaving and say, oh, we should connect to this context and to this matter and to this other thing and, and go from there. All right. Other thoughts before you wrap? Great. Thanks. Thank you. Super, super juicy and generative. Yeah. Really appreciate it. Great. Thanks all. Bye. Bye-bye.