Cybrarian Reva Basch is the ultimate intelligent agent.
You won't find Reva Basch listed in the Yellow Pages under "Cybrarians," though that's how she describes her job. Pacific Bell lists her under the more prosaic "Information Retrieval Service and Research." Whatever you call her, Basch wrote the book on the subject: Secrets of the Super Searchers. She - along with 3,000 to 5,000 independent searchers nationwide - is an information-age librarian who sleuths online databases for her clients at US$80 an hour. John Whalen caught up with her in the green hills of Berkeley, California - where, from her home office, Basch "data-surfs" on behalf of a varied list of clients, ranging from Silicon Valley start-ups to new moms desperately seeking lactation consultants.
Wired: The major commercial databases tend to carry mainstream periodicals, not alternative publications. Is this bad news for the preservation of memetic diversity?
Basch
: It's funny - a lot of this stuff has been driven by economics. Until now, if the information didn't already exist in computer-readable form, or if the money wasn't there, it wasn't made into a database. But now, those smaller, alternative pubs are popping up on the Internet, big time. It's a lot cheaper to put your publication on the Net and maintain it than it is to go through one of the major database producers like Dialog or Nexis. So I'm no longer waiting for alternative publications to come up on the standard commercial online services. They're doing an end run - they're putting themselves right on the Net. Which is in some ways as it should be. The trouble is, searching on the Internet still leaves much to be desired.
What do you need to make the Internet more navigable?
There are some pretty powerful text-analysis engines out there that are being worked on. But my real dream would be a Netwide, completely up-to-date, hierarchically arranged subject indexing capability that is as sophisticated as what you find in the commercial databases. I'm not holding my breath for that. One thing that interests me is the way home pages on the World Wide Web are being used to link information. In my business, we've been asking for hypertext links to related documents for years, and it hasn't happened, except on a very limited level. And, of course, that's what the World Wide Web is all about.
Let's talk about intelligent agents. They've been described as digital butlers that roam the Infobahn gathering data for you - based on your needs - and learn more about your interests over time.
Apple has this really nauseating movie about an intelligent agent, a little dorky-looking guy with a bow tie. The user clicks on "him" and "he" goes out to get data from all over, using this very conversational dialog. It's by no means a new idea. Last year, Paul Saffo made the really good point [Wired 2.03, page 74] that the next salable commodity in cyberspace is going to be point of view, in which you subscribe to an intelligent agent whose interests and points of view map yours. You say, "OK, Rush Limbaugh knowbot," or "OK, Ralph Nader knowbot, go out there and get me stuff from the Net that you think is important." Personifying the agent - I think we're going to see a lot of that. It's an interesting idea: Whose filter do you want to view the Net through?
It might also become a way for people to treat data more hermetically - to shun information that clashes with their particular ideologies.
Oh, yeah. The Dittohead view of the world.
It's sort of the opposite end of the classical media model. For years we've had the mainstream media force-feeding us all the news they deem fit to print, and now we face the prospect of having information become so fragmented and specialized that political consensus becomes even harder to achieve.
It depends on how it's implemented. I can't see there being any more polarization or skewed set of views than we're getting from media today. I've just got to believe that it's in the nature of the Net and self-publishing to encourage a proliferation of ideas - may 10,000 intelligent agents bloom. There's going to be a lot more points of view than in today's media.
So, what will you be doing 10 years from now when we all have digital butlers and cybervalets?
A hell of a lot less direct online searching. But there are always going to be people who, even though they know they can search for themselves, aren't going to be interested in trying. All they want is the data; they'll be willing to pay somebody else for that.
Is it addicting to have all this information under your power?
It's addicting yet self-limiting, because as long as the systems charge what they do, it's like the '80s and coke: you can work yourself into the poorhouse.
You raise a good point. Online searching is very expensive. And with public libraries cutting back on reference services, aren't we in danger of making information a commodity that only the élite can afford?
That's a question I would have answered very differently a year ago. The hype about the Internet is driving the commercial online services to change prices and offer more user-friendly interfaces. One of the second-tier online services, Data Times, just announced a $39.95-a-month flat-fee package for newspapers and trade journals - with considerable overlap of Dialog's databases. There are no connect charges, and it costs maybe a couple of bucks for each article retrieved. With this, you're getting down to the level of the average person.
How will living and interacting online warp our cognition and perhaps change the way we interact offline? You've written about how mainlining text at 9600 bits per second for a living has complicated your nonvirtual life.
I notice it in particular when I read for pleasure. I just can't keep my eyes still. I have to remind myself to slow down and say, "Hey, you're reading for style, not content, stop browsing, start reading." It does have an accelerating effect on life. At parties, I'll scan the people: "not interesting, not interesting." Which is awful - sort of looking over their shoulders for the next person who might add value. It's a terrible, terrible thing to do. I'll tell you something else I've discovered - I am less and less satisfied with superficial social connections. Online, especially on The Well, you really get into it, perhaps because of the conferencing software; there is one deep, deep conversation devoted to a particular issue. I find that affects my relationships with offline friends, especially people I haven't seen for a while. There's a lack of depth and context and continuity in a lot of my face-to-face relationships. I think the whole quality of human interaction is changing.
So what is it about this emerging modem society that makes it more intimate?
Well, part of it, of course, is the anonymity. And part of it is asynchronicity - you can compose a well-crafted, thoughtful posting offline. Also, you can deliberate - you don't have to respond in real time.
