Advertisement

Bootstrapping the Next Generation of Social Machines

  • Dave  Murray-RustEmail author
  • Dave Robertson
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

The term “social machines” denotes a class of systems where humans and machines interact so that computational infrastructure supports human creativity. Flagship examples such as Wikipedia and Ushahidi demonstrate how computational coordination can enhance information sharing and aggregation, while the Zooniverse family of projects show how social machines can produce scientific knowledge. These socio-technical systems cannot easily be analysed in purely computational or purely sociological terms, and they cannot be reduced to Turing machines. Social machines are used in the creation of software, from software crowdsourcing projects such as TopCoder and oDesk, to distributed development platforms such at GitHub and Bitbucket . Hence, social machines are increasingly used to create the software infrastructure for new social machine. However, social machine development is a more complex process than software development, as the community must be “programmed” as well as the machines. This leads to development in the context evolving and unknown requirements, and having to deal with more sociological concepts than formal systems designers usually work with. We hence model the process using two coupled social machines: the target social machine , with whatever purposes the creators envisions, and the development social machine which is used to create it. As an example, oDesk can form part of a development social machine which might be used to create a target social machine, e.g. “the next Facebook”. In this chapter, we describe a formalism for social machines, consisting of i) a community of humans and their “social software” interacting with ii) a collection of computational resources and their associated state, protocols and ability to analyse data and make inferences. We draw on the ideas of ‘desire lines’ and ‘play-in’ to argue that top down design of social machines is impossible, that we hence need to leverage computational support in creating complex systems in an iterative, dynamic and emergent manner, and that our formalism provides a possible blueprint for how to do this.

Keywords

Software Development Computational Infrastructure Collective Intelligence Social Software Machine Software 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported under SOCIAM: The Theory and Practice of Social Machines, a programme funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) under grant number EP/J017728/1, and a collaboration between the Universities of Edinburgh, Oxford, and Southampton.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Alexander, C.: The Oregon Experiment. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1975)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Fischetti, M., By-Dertouzos, M.F.: Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=556560 (2000)
  4. 4.
    Damm, W., Harel, D.: LSCs: breathing life into message sequence charts. Fom. Method. Syst. Des. 19(1), 45–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Communicating open systems. Artif. Intell. 186 38–94 (2012). doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2012.03.004. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0004370212000252
  6. 6.
    Goldman, M., Little, G., Miller, R.: Collabode: collaborative coding in the browser. In: CHASE11, Waikiki, Honolulu, pp. 65–68 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halfaker, A., Kittur, A., Riedl, J.: Don’t bite the newbies (2011). doi: 10.1145/2038558.2038585. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038558.2038585
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Hendler, J., Berners-Lee, T.: From the semantic web to social machines: a research challenge for AI on the World Wide Web. Artif. Intell. (2010). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370209001404
  10. 10.
    Ko, A.J., Myers, B., Rosson, M.B., Rothermel, G., Shaw, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A., Burnett, M., Erwig, M., Scaffidi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieberman, H.: The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Comput. Sur. 43(3), 1–44 (2011). doi: 10.1145/1922649.1922658. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1922649.1922658
  11. 11.
    Lepri, B., Salah, A., Pianesi, F., Pentland, A.: Human behavior understanding for inducing behavioral change: social and theoretical aspects. Communications in computer and information science, Constr. Ambient Intell. 252–263. (2012). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31479-7_44
  12. 12.
    Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R., Dellarocas, C.: Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence, MIT Sloan (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R., Dellarocas, C.: The Collective Intelligence Genome. In: MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 51(3), 21–31 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, U., Pease, A.: Mathematical practice, crowdsourcing, and social machines. In: Carette, J., Aspinall, D., Sojka, P., Lange, C., Windsteiger, W. (eds.) Intelligent Computer Mathematics: MKM, Calculemus, DML, and Systems and Projects 2013, pp. 98–119. Springer (2013). http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0900
  15. 15.
    McGinnis, J., Robertson, D., Walton, C.: Protocol synthesis with dialogue structure theory. In: Simon Parsons, Nicolas Maudet, Pavlos Moraitis, Iyad Rahwan (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 199–216. Springer (2006). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11794578_13
  16. 16.
    Miller, T., McGinnis, J.: Amongst first-class protocols. In: Alexander Artikis, Gregory M. P. O’Hare, Kostas Stathis, George Vouros (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents World VIII, pp. 208–223 (2008). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-87654-0_11
  17. 17.
    Murray-Rust, D., Robertson, D.: LSCitter: building social machines by augmenting existing social networks with interaction models. In: SOCM at WWW, Seoul (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myhill, C.: Commercial success by looking for desire lines. Computer Human Interaction, pp. 293–304. Springer, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. (2008). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10458-008-9053-x
  20. 20.
    Pentland, A.: The new science of building great teams. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(4), 60–69 (2012). http://www.citeulike.org/group/15592/article/10606943
  21. 21.
    Raddick, M.J., Bracey, G., Gay, P.L., Lintott, C.J., Cardamone, C., Murray, P., Schawinski, K., Szalay, A.S., Vandenberg, J.: Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of Citizen Scientists. Astron. Educ. Rev. 12(1) 010–106. American Astronomical Society (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reed, J., Raddick, M.J., Lardner, A., Carney, K.: An exploratory factor analysis of motivations for participating in zooniverse, a collection of virtual citizen science projects. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 610–619. IEEE (2013). doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.85. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6479908
  23. 23.
    Robertson, D.: A lightweight coordination calculus for agent systems. Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies II, pp. 183–197. Springer, Berlin (2005). doi: 10.1007/11493402_11
  24. 24.
    Robertson, D.: Lightweight coordination calculus for agent systems: retrospective and prospective. Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies 2011, LNAI 7169, pp. 84–89. Springer, Berlin (2012). http://www.springerlink.com/index/R563456340176230.pdf
  25. 25.
    Robertson, D., Giunchiglia, F.: Programming the social computer. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Ser. A. Phy. Sci. Eng. 371(1987) (2013). http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1987/20120379.short
  26. 26.
    Schall, D., Satzger, B., Psaier, H.: Crowdsourcing tasks to social networks in BPEL4People. World Wide Web (2012). doi:  10.1007/s11280-012-0180-6. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11280-012-0180-6
  27. 27.
    Shadbolt, N., Smith, D., Simperl, E., Van Kleek, M., Yang, Y., Hall, W.: Towards a classification framework for social machines. In: SOCM2013: The Theory and Practice of Social Machines. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Siebes, R., Dupplaw, D., Kotoulas, S., Pinninck, A.P.D., Harmelen, F.V., Robertson, D.: The openknowledge system : an interaction-centered approach to knowledge sharing. On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS, pp. 381–390. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang, D., Agarwal, A., O’Brien, D., Meyer, M.: Overlapping experiment infrastructure: more, better, faster experimentation. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 17–26 (2010). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1835810

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CISA, School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations