Leonardo Flores: Hi, every­one. I’m here to talk about pub­lish­ing and pre­serv­ing bots. This is both a few ideas, and an invi­ta­tion. So, let’s quick­ly get to it.

Just a quick thing about my work on bots for those who might not be famil­iar with me. You can see me on Twitter. During the sum­mer, I put togeth­er this WordPress site that’s a bot forum. You all have an invi­ta­tion to join it. It’s a space to have con­ver­sa­tions about bots. So I invite you to do this if you like. I’m most­ly not so much a bot mak­er but a schol­ar of bots and elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture. I’ve reviewed and com­piled resources on bots. Many of you I’ve reviewed and, not every­one, but I’m always inter­est­ed and I’m always want­i­ng to con­tin­ue read­ing and review­ing and appre­ci­at­ing bots, and spread­ing it to the world.

The project I real­ly want to talk about is, I’m part of the Electronic Literature Collection edi­to­r­i­al col­lec­tive, and this means that we’re putting togeth­er this col­lec­tion of elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture. The ELO, the Electronic Literature Organization has pub­lished two of these col­lec­tions in the past, in 2006 and 2011. They are won­der­ful resources for study­ing, teach­ing, expe­ri­enc­ing elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture. You might ask your­selves What is elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture?” and I’m going to bor­row a lit­tle note from Nick Montfort, who used this dis­tinc­tion very well a cou­ple of years ago in a pre­sen­ta­tion. First of all e‑lit is not e‑books. E‑books are the sort of industry-driven rep­re­sen­ta­tions of the book in dig­i­tal media. They’re top-down, they’re real­ly about sell­ing books in devices. Selling devices as well. 


But e‑literature is this set of grass­root exper­i­men­tal prac­tices that embrace the poten­tial of dig­i­tal media tech­nolo­gies to cre­ate inno­v­a­tive engage­ments with lan­guage. It’s what you’re doing. It’s essen­tial­ly just peo­ple using dig­i­tal media to cre­ate and be cre­ative, and to engage lan­guage with those tech­nolo­gies. So there’s a ton of dif­fer­ent gen­res that have devel­oped around this. E‑lit is also known by many dif­fer­ent names, e‑lit, e‑literature, dig­i­tal lit­er­a­ture, elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture, but you can see a bunch of dif­fer­ent gen­res that have devel­oped over the years, and bots are one of those gen­res and I think a very inter­est­ing and vital one.

And it’s dig­i­tal con­text, right? They have these mate­r­i­al depen­den­cies. In this case, we see a lot of social net­work use. Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, oth­ers have been men­tioned. And these plat­forms are nec­es­sary but also pro­duc­tive­ly cre­ative spaces for us to mess around with. The work with the Electronic Literature Collection vol­ume 3 is we’ve had this open call for sub­mis­sions which end­ed on November 5 [2014]. I sent a lot of invi­ta­tions out there to get some bots to be con­sid­ered, to be sub­mit­ted. And I think the ques­tion of why should we pub­lish a bot? Aren’t bots already pub­lished on Twitter? I think the idea of pub­lish­ing a bot in the ELC3 aims to do more. We want to con­tex­tu­al­ize the bots for the audi­ence of the ELC3, peo­ple who study and are inter­est­ed in elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture. To frame bots as a kind of elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture. To link to the live bot on Twitter. But we also want to offer mate­ri­als so those bots can be stud­ied. We want to pre­serve it for future gen­er­a­tions. So what does this mean, exactly?

When we say we want to pub­lish a bot, we want to pub­lish an intro­duc­tion to the bot; I men­tioned that already. And we want to link to the live Twitter bot, but also I think it’s impor­tant to pub­lish the bot’s source code. That way peo­ple can see how it works, they can remix it if they like, or repli­cate the engine, or per­form code read­ings on that source code. I want to pub­lish, and we want to pub­lish, a snap­shot of the bot’s activ­i­ty. So the Twitter archive that’s down­load­able. We can pro­vide the raw CSV file, but we also would want to pro­duce a nice inter­face to see the data. It might end up just being a big link to the tweets, and links to the indi­vid­ual tweets’ URLs, because I think that’s real­ly inter­est­ing as well. Whenever a bot tweets some­thing it is this dig­i­tal object that exists on Twitter, and peo­ple can inter­act with that dig­i­tal object. They reply to it, they favorite, they retweet. It gains a life of its own, so I want to pro­vide access to those objects on the web. 

I also want, and I’m think­ing we might want to scrape some data on that indi­vid­ual tweet. If Twitter were to sud­den­ly crash and burn, we want this to sur­vive. We want to have at least a sense of, at the moment of pub­li­ca­tion, how was that tweet per­ceived? Just to kind of gath­er that data and make it part of what we pub­lish. And of course, as long as Twitter’s there, as long as they hon­or and main­tain those links, won­der­ful. You can just fol­low the link and see the updat­ed ver­sion, the live ver­sion. But again, if it crash­es and burns, we still have a record of it. I think that’s impor­tant as well. I’m think­ing long-term preser­va­tion here.

Some con­cerns. Attribution and per­mis­sion are con­cerns. For exam­ple a bot with copy­right­ed source mate­ri­als. Can we pub­lish that with­out get­ting the per­mis­sion, or pay­ing the copy­right own­ers, for that mate­r­i­al? I’m not sure about some of these things. The ques­tion has already been raised about what con­sti­tutes Fair Use, and whether some­thing is being changed enough. Also do we need to con­tact and get per­mis­sion of all of @pentametron’s and @haikud2’s attrib­uted retweets and tweets? They’re retweet­ing oth­er peo­ples’ tweets, isn’t that their prop­er­ty? Can we pub­lish that? I want to, and my incli­na­tion is yes we must. But at the same time, it might be com­pli­cat­ed. So it’s some­thing worth think­ing about. And of course the oth­er con­cern is if Twitter crash­es, or if there’s anoth­er bot­poca­lypse, and it all comes crash­ing down. I do want us to have a record that this hap­pened, even if the live bot does­n’t work any­more. Even if Twitter itself does­n’t work any­more. I would like for there to be a record in the ELC3 that these bots exist­ed, and that peo­ple inter­act­ed with them, and they respond­ed to them, and they pro­duced things, and here’s a sam­pling of that, here’s a snap­shot of that.

So I want to make a spe­cial invi­ta­tion to you all. The call for sub­mis­sions closed on November 5 [2014] but between us (And don’t tell any­one please; pre­tend this is not stream­ing live on the Internet.) the form is still open, which means you can still sub­mit your bot, if you’re inter­est­ed. If your bot kind of fits this idea of e‑lit, of this sort of engage­ment with lan­guage, there’s the link. Go and sub­mit the bots, and we will con­sid­er them. This win­dow, we will even­tu­al­ly shut down the sub­mis­sion form. We’ve already received over 400 sub­mis­sions, and we’re think­ing to pub­lish about six­ty works. So this will be com­pet­i­tive. However I think these bots can com­pete, and can com­pete very well. So I’m very inter­est­ed in this, and we can have a con­ver­sa­tion about this. If you have ques­tions, com­ments, ideas, even beyond the scope of this par­tic­u­lar bot sum­mit, here’s all my con­tact infor­ma­tion. Get in touch with me. Ask me the ques­tions. Submit more than one bot. Give us some mate­r­i­al to think about. And I’ll be very grate­ful. Thank you all.


Darius Kazemi: We did have a ques­tion from Matt Schneider, ask­ing about preser­va­tion. This is sort of a mechan­i­cal ques­tion about preser­va­tion and con­cern­ing bots that use media, and rich media essen­tial­ly, and that cap­tur­ing the tweet is often not enough. Or even if a bot links to a web site and expects the user to vis­it that web site. You might want that web site in that con­text as well.

Leonardo Flores: Yeah, we can’t copy the whole Internet. We do have some space con­straints. However, we’ll try to archive the things that are sort of in the purview of that bot how­ev­er much we can. We’ll try to do as much as we can. But of course it’s a concern.

Darius: Allison can you talk about the excel­lent point you brought up in the chat?

Allison Parrish: This is some­thing I feel gets left out of a lot of these disc­s­sions of pre­serv­ing tech­nol­o­gy, like it’s kind of a big sub-field in elec­tron­ic lit­er­a­ture stuff, in par­tic­u­lar. But I think the impor­tant thing (This isn’t a ques­tion but Darius is mak­ing me say it.) I think an impor­tant and inter­est­ing thing to do would be to do some ethno­graph­ic work in addi­tion to archiv­ing work, and inter­view­ing peo­ple about their expe­ri­ence of read­ing or fol­low­ing or using a bot. And so that we cap­ture a lit­tle bit of— because like you say you can’t cap­ture the entire Internet, but we can have a record of some­body’s expe­ri­ence of doing that par­tic­u­lar thing. I won­der what you think of that idea of includ­ing a lit­tle bit of ethno­graph­ic work in addi­tion to the the tech­ni­cal work of actu­al­ly doing this archiving.

Leonardo Flores: Absolutely. I think if you’ve seen the Electronic Literature Collections, they all have a nice lit­tle intro­duc­tion to each work. And I think this is a good space to include that kind of mate­r­i­al. This Electronic Literature Collection can be what we make of it, and I’m game. I’m game and inter­est­ed in con­sid­er­ing any kind of addi­tion­al mate­r­i­al that enrich­es the expe­ri­ence of the work, and the doc­u­men­ta­tion of the work, but we can doc­u­ment expe­ri­ences of the work as well as the work itself.

Darius: Other ques­tions, or com­ments on preservation?

Leonardo Flores: Do you think this might work? I think it seems sound, right? You can down­load the archive, you can get the source files, so at least that we can do.

Darius: I think it def­i­nite­ly seems sound. Then there’s just, how far do you take it? There’s an infi­nite amount of work that you can do in archiv­ing, and I think it’s a mat­ter of draw­ing lines, and maybe that’s a line that expands where nec­es­sary. Maybe it’s up to a bot cre­ator to decide, Oh well, I want ethno­gra­phies, and I want to scrape all the pages that I’m ref­er­enc­ing” and that sort of thing as well. That’s my thought on that. I guesss Nick and then Joel and then Eric.

Nick Montfort: I’m just going to men­tion we have in the sec­ond vol­ume of the Electronic Literature Collection already doc­u­men­ta­tion of instal­la­tions. Like work that was done in a cave in the ground, and var­i­ous places where we don’t have the work itself there. But we have infor­ma­tion about it to show you some of what it was like. So we haven’t done this with bots, but we’ve already done sim­i­lar types of work in the mak­ing that mate­r­i­al avail­able along­side com­put­er pro­grams that run, and multi-media pieces that work and so on, so that peo­ple do get this rich­er idea, what cre­ative activ­i­ty’s going on.

Allison: To be clear, I was­n’t talk­ing about some per­ceived prob­lem with the Electronic Literature Collection. I was just think­ing, my point is that we could have a perfectly-preserved Commodore 64 or some­thing, but it does­n’t mean any­thing to have just that arti­fact sit­ting there unless we also know what peo­ple did with it.

Darius: Joel?

Joel McCoy: I was just going to say that you’ve from the, min­i­mum viable idea of what those archives are going to be… Ever since the @horse_ebooks sit­u­a­tion, a lot of peo­ple are very inter­est­ed in hav­ing the archive for that account, because at this point if you by by what’s still avail­able in its archive, and what Favstar has got in most engage­ment, it’s always the con­tent since it was tak­en over by a human being. It’s always been very inter­est­ing, even a a very basic lev­el of Alright, let’s bisect this archive into when it was script and when it was an art project.” So even just the raw tweet con­tent, at least in that case, would be a very inter­est­ing piece of his­to­ry to use. We don’t have it.

Leonardo Flores: I would love, if any­one knows a way to con­tact the @horse_ebooks per­son. I’ve been try­ing, I’ve been ask­ing around, but I don’t know how. I haven’t been able to get a hold of, I for­get his name, but I haven’t been able to get a hold of him. I think it’s an impor­tant phenomenon.

Darius: Which part, though? The Russian who ran a spam account, or the artist who ran the not-bot, I guess?

Leonardo Flores: The one who bought the bot. I think it’d be inter­est­ing to include that piece. It was wild­ly pop­u­lar. And to do a study of the gen­er­at­ed part ver­sus the per­for­ma­tive, the human per­for­mance part, I think would be interesting.

Darius: Eric, you had a comment.

Eric: One thing that comes to mind if we’re going to be archiv­ing source code for bots, is I feel like with any of these soft­ware preser­va­tion projects there’s always the prob­lem of, you have source code but can any­one actu­al­ly run it or use it or get it to do any­thing? And espe­cial­ly since Twitter con­trols the API to their ser­vice, a lot of the bot source code, at least in my expe­ri­ence, is often deal­ing with these types of APIs that change over time. So I was won­der­ing A, what your thoughts on that are and then B, is if we’re going to start archiv­ing bots in a seri­ous way, is there some kind of—I almost want to say like a Twitter vir­tu­al machine or some­thing we could pro­gram that will be sta­ble. That in thir­ty years or some­thing you could actu­al­ly fire it up and run a Twitter bot and get it to do some­thing, as opposed to like, the ser­vice may not exist any­more, the oper­at­ing sys­tem might be dif­fer­ent. It just seems very ephemer­al right now.

Offscreen 1: I think that’s called [Archer?].

Leonardo Flores: I would love to have a small Twitter just run­ning inside of the Electronic Literature Collection vol­ume 3. As a mat­ter of fact last night I was hav­ing a con­ver­sa­tion with Susan Garfinkel of the Library of Congress. I’m at the American Studies Association con­fer­ence right now. She was sug­gest­ing even cre­at­ing this sort of mini Twitter-like space where some­one could go inter­act with the bots, and read, like to pub­lish ten or twelve or twen­ty bots in the ELC3, and have a lit­tle space where some­one could poten­tial­ly inter­act with the bots. But then that would require all kinds of addi­tion­al pro­gram­ming. It would be a dif­fer­ent kind of expe­ri­ence. So I think things break, but if you have the orig­i­nal source code, maybe twen­ty years from now some­one can say, Well all we need to do is recon­struct this, this, this, and this and [bring] the bot back to life, kind of fix it.”

Darius: I think that real­ly depends on the nature of the bot, too. If it’s a bot that sources from peo­ple say­ing they’re lone­ly on Twitter, for exam­ple, unless you sam­ple Twitter for six months and just run it on a con­stant loop, even then you’re going to get this weird sce­nario where it’s like, this is frozen in time. One of the things I like about bots is, like green bots, as Mark Sample would call them (Second Mark Sample cita­tion!) is that they evolve with the world. So as slang evolves on Twitter, as memes evolve on Twitter, as news comes out, they stay top­i­cal. And I think it’s inter­est­ing, like I would be inter­est­ed in mak­ing a closed time loop of Twitter that could be sam­pled or some­thing and made a source. I think it would be imper­fect, but also like emu­lat­ing a Nintendo is imper­fect, too. I’m cer­tain­ly glad I live in a world where we can emu­late Nintendos ver­sus nev­er play­ing Nintendo games ever again.

Joel: It’s like the weird idea of res­ur­rect­ing the dead machine from thou­sands of years ago ver­sus trans­lat­ing the con­tent of old Amiga or Tandy man­u­als or what­ev­er, and being like, Here’s what this thing did. Here’s what it looks like to be brought alive in our world that we’ve liv­ing in.” And I don’t know if res­ur­rect­ing the ancient machine the way that our wise fore­bears left it to us is any bet­ter than recre­at­ing it in the world that we’re now in. So the idea of get­ting this Stasis Twitter” seems less engag­ing than the idea of sim­u­lat­ing a Twitter stream with RSS or some oth­er sys­tem. Or what­ev­er the mod­ern net­work is, or port­ing it to what­ev­er social net­work is pop­u­lar [cross-talk]. That seems more fruit­ful as the pro­ce­dur­al ver­sus con­tent [emu­lat­ing?] that he was talk­ing about.

Darius: I think that almost touch­es on some of the points Nick talked about in the trans­la­tion work, where you want to just trans­late the sense of the work rather than shoot for a mechan­i­cal idea.

Leonardo Flores: And I think that’s why it’s impor­tant to have that sort of snap­shot of the moment. Because it is a per­for­mance. Right now what we can doc­u­ment is the source code, but also the per­for­mance of the bot’s life, up to the moment in which, as late as we can before going to press so to speak, with the col­lec­tion. And there­fore that can survive.

Darius: You think like, hap­pen­ings or Situationst per­for­mances and things like that. We have archives of them, but I’m nev­er going to know what’s it’s going to be like in Paris in the 60s so I’m just not going to have that con­text, and the best I can do is read peo­ple write about it, either from that time or peo­ple who were there or have stud­ied it a lot. Nick.

Nick Montfort: I just want to make a bit of a case for keep­ing func­tion­ing arti­fi­cial arti­facts around. Because think about some­thing like ELIZA, to speak of bots. Fifty years lat­er, we still have psy­chother­a­py. You can under­stand what that is, even if we did­n’t under­stand exact­ly as in the 60s. Computers are cer­tain­ly at a dif­fer­ent stage, and devel­op­ment of nat­ur­al lan­guage inter­faces is dif­fer­ent, and so on. But it’s not just a mat­ter of think­ing about how did that work on a teleprint­er, back in 1965, and what was the office like and what was that expe­ri­ence. If we become too obsessed with try­ing to recre­ate that, we don’t give our­selves the per­mis­sion to have our own expe­ri­ences today with the same com­pu­ta­tion­al work, the same piece of art or lit­er­a­ture that hap­pens to be a com­put­er pro­gram. You don’t go to the art muse­um, you go to the Met, you don’t say, Okay let’s expe­ri­ences these exact­ly as they did in Egypt 2000 years ago.” We rec­og­nize that we live in the world today, and we’re look­ing at works that have been main­tained and exist now. So I think it’s sen­si­ble to con­sid­er pre­serv­ing things from an ethno­graph­ic stand­point and con­sid­er­ing how peo­ple use them, but not all this stuff will only be of the moment. Some of it might be inter­est­ing in fifty, a hun­dred, or more years. And hav­ing it around, hav­ing source code around to have it run is part of that.

Darius: Yeah, it’s a yes, and” type sit­u­a­tion. I don’t think any­one’s say­ing we should throw the source code out the win­dow. Although I could take that approach.

Nick: Or on the com­mand line.

Further Reference

Darius Kazemi’s home page for Bot Summit 2014, with YouTube links to indi­vid­ual ses­sions, and a log of the IRC channel.

Leonardo has post­ed the slides for his pre­sen­ta­tion at his site.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.