Are Bots Our Best Readers? - An Exercise in Silliness
“Ad Lectorem (Cogitans Machina)”
In 1950, Alan Turing threw down the gauntlet in his paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” effectively challenging us via what is now called the Turing Test, if we could tell the difference between a computer and a human being in communication if both parties were concealed from us. Now, with a surfeit of chatbots and (perhaps more alarmingly) successful advances in persona management software that aids the shady practice of online astroturfing, the Turing test is one that we continue to pass or fail (depending on who you are rooting for). The Internet is infested with bitty bots that go about doing the work of collecting and sorting data, presumably to facilitate ease of use.
A writing colleague of mine was asking me who my “biggest” readership was. I am sure he meant some kind of niche market segment or demographic. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that my largest reading audience are bots; specifically, the webcrawling variety. An algorithmic program designed to capture and collect online data for the purposes of storage, categorization, classification, and dissemination. Bots are indeed my best readers. For example, Google’s search engine bots read me once every couple of hours, if not every few minutes, in providing up to date content associated with my name. If I have full works posted online, the bot can scan that data much quicker than any human being could. A quick look at my website analytics tells the story much better: the vast majority of page visits are performed automatically by bots, not human readers. In fact, in a breakdown of my readership, bots outnumber human beings by about ten to one.
When our writing is subjected to the digital alchemy of being transmuted into bits, is it no wonder that we may in fact also be writing for our other very large audience, the bots? The bot, that most indiscriminate but thorough of readers, will voraciously gobble up anything you choose to post. The bot will not chastise you for the occasional (or frequent) typo, will not judge your work as being good or bad.
Of course a bot is not designed to process the “deeper meanings” of the text any more than the bot can pick out a metaphor, or identify any poetic device from the antistrophe to the zeugma. Yet, if being able to pick such devices out were a necessary precondition to being a reader, then a majority of human beings would be excluded from that category as well. And if we even consider how many of us download free books, or purchase a bundle of used books at a sale with all the intention of reading them, and never getting around to doing so, then perhaps bots are more “well-read” quantitatively than we are.
It might also be said that the bot does not derive pleasure or displeasure from the act of reading. Quite true since it apparently reads in a value-neutral way that is entirely governed by a mechanical process. No matter how bad, formulaic, ersatz, or cliche our writing might become, the bot will remain our most loyal reader.
Bots are not discriminating readers because their function is to collect all data posted in the online world and make “sense” of it, following our lead as Internet users in tagging that information, sorting it, and making it easier for us to access what we are looking for (although I can say from experience that Google’s failure rate in providing what I am searching for has never been higher).
The old saw of “write with your audience in mind” puts me in a very awkward position if I am to abide by both the spirit and the letter of such a demand. How am I to write for the bots? I suppose I should ensure that all the keywords and meta-tags are in place to make their reading job easier. It is not as though bots are intelligent agents that have preferences for particular genres. They never give feedback on whether or not they liked or disliked the text. They don’t ask for interviews, don’t come to book signings, don’t implore the author to write a novel based on a favourite character, and they certainly don’t directly increase author royalties. I suppose a large number of human readers may also share these qualities.
For those authors who fall into despair that they are not being read, well, there is some cold and mechanical solace in the fact that at least the bot does, loyally and without judgement, soundlessly munching away at your bon mots, organizing them for search and retrieval.
I know a bot will be reading this shortly after I post it, and will not be irritated at the speciousness of what I have written here.
In 1950, Alan Turing threw down the gauntlet in his paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” effectively challenging us via what is now called the Turing Test, if we could tell the difference between a computer and a human being in communication if both parties were concealed from us. Now, with a surfeit of chatbots and (perhaps more alarmingly) successful advances in persona management software that aids the shady practice of online astroturfing, the Turing test is one that we continue to pass or fail (depending on who you are rooting for). The Internet is infested with bitty bots that go about doing the work of collecting and sorting data, presumably to facilitate ease of use.
A writing colleague of mine was asking me who my “biggest” readership was. I am sure he meant some kind of niche market segment or demographic. Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that my largest reading audience are bots; specifically, the webcrawling variety. An algorithmic program designed to capture and collect online data for the purposes of storage, categorization, classification, and dissemination. Bots are indeed my best readers. For example, Google’s search engine bots read me once every couple of hours, if not every few minutes, in providing up to date content associated with my name. If I have full works posted online, the bot can scan that data much quicker than any human being could. A quick look at my website analytics tells the story much better: the vast majority of page visits are performed automatically by bots, not human readers. In fact, in a breakdown of my readership, bots outnumber human beings by about ten to one.
When our writing is subjected to the digital alchemy of being transmuted into bits, is it no wonder that we may in fact also be writing for our other very large audience, the bots? The bot, that most indiscriminate but thorough of readers, will voraciously gobble up anything you choose to post. The bot will not chastise you for the occasional (or frequent) typo, will not judge your work as being good or bad.
Of course a bot is not designed to process the “deeper meanings” of the text any more than the bot can pick out a metaphor, or identify any poetic device from the antistrophe to the zeugma. Yet, if being able to pick such devices out were a necessary precondition to being a reader, then a majority of human beings would be excluded from that category as well. And if we even consider how many of us download free books, or purchase a bundle of used books at a sale with all the intention of reading them, and never getting around to doing so, then perhaps bots are more “well-read” quantitatively than we are.
It might also be said that the bot does not derive pleasure or displeasure from the act of reading. Quite true since it apparently reads in a value-neutral way that is entirely governed by a mechanical process. No matter how bad, formulaic, ersatz, or cliche our writing might become, the bot will remain our most loyal reader.
Bots are not discriminating readers because their function is to collect all data posted in the online world and make “sense” of it, following our lead as Internet users in tagging that information, sorting it, and making it easier for us to access what we are looking for (although I can say from experience that Google’s failure rate in providing what I am searching for has never been higher).
The old saw of “write with your audience in mind” puts me in a very awkward position if I am to abide by both the spirit and the letter of such a demand. How am I to write for the bots? I suppose I should ensure that all the keywords and meta-tags are in place to make their reading job easier. It is not as though bots are intelligent agents that have preferences for particular genres. They never give feedback on whether or not they liked or disliked the text. They don’t ask for interviews, don’t come to book signings, don’t implore the author to write a novel based on a favourite character, and they certainly don’t directly increase author royalties. I suppose a large number of human readers may also share these qualities.
For those authors who fall into despair that they are not being read, well, there is some cold and mechanical solace in the fact that at least the bot does, loyally and without judgement, soundlessly munching away at your bon mots, organizing them for search and retrieval.
I know a bot will be reading this shortly after I post it, and will not be irritated at the speciousness of what I have written here.
No comments have been added yet.
