Kevin Kelly谈未来5000天后的网络世界

======================
http://dotsub.com/view/9433da14-bbd1-4252-8c5b-26a70d63171c
Kevin Kelly谈未来5000天后的网络世界
互联网，又称网络， 我们所说的网络， 其历史还不到5000天。 这期间发生的所有事情， 比如整个地球的卫星图片， 都是你以前无法想象的， 这些闯入我们生活的所有东西， 这些多彩多姿的东西，就在我们眼前， 在笔记本电脑或是桌面电脑上。 这样的东西像聚宝盆一样， 永远不会枯竭，真是令人惊讶，但我们好像并不觉得惊奇。 真地很神奇，所有东西都在这儿。 （笑） 在短短的5000天之内，所有东西都出现了。 如果我在10年前告诉你， 这些东西将要到来， 你会说，这是不可能的。 原因很简单，没有任何一套经济模型能支持它的存在。 如果我又说，它会是免费的。 你会回答，你在做梦。 你是加利福尼亚空想家。你是狂热的乐观主义者。 然而，它已出现在我们面前。
我们知道的另一件事，是在10年前 我看到Wired（连线杂志）上说， 我们认为下一个将会是电视，但会更好。 它已经是典范， 所以大家都认为它会来临。 结果，却不是大家所想象的那样。 第一，它不可能；第二，它以前没发生过。 我想我们学到的经验之一就是—— 想象维基百科， 就是个‘不可能’的例子—— 理论上不可行，但实际上却可行。 如果你能接受这些不可能， 从这个世纪、从过去10年里， 我们学到的东西之一就是，我们最好接受不可能的事， 因为我们还没准备好。
因此我对于未来5000天感到好奇。 看看过去5000天发生的事， 下一个5000天会有什么事发生呢？ 我有一个简单的报道， 它提示我们应该好好思考，在下个5000天里， 我们将制造出什么，将发生什么事。 到时，所有电脑、掌上设备、 手机、笔记本电脑、伺服器...等 简单地说，所有的连接， 都将形成一部机器。 “唯一”的一部机器，我们的掌上设备， 不过是个小小视窗 我们正在建造的是一部唯一涵盖全球的机器。
我发觉到 这部机器正是人类 有史以来创造过的最可靠的机器。 它从不宕机，它永不停止运算， 比起我们制造过的任何机器 工作时数、工作天数，都要持久。 5000天不间断地运行，真是难以置信。 当然因特网的历史超过5000天， 我是指Web不过5000天历史 所以我试着测量这部机器， 它到底有多大 我开始计算全世界的电脑上， 总共发生几次鼠标点击。 结果是1天1千亿次点击。 全世界网页之间有55万亿个连接。
因此，我领悟到它是另一种规模。 我做了一个清单，摄影家克里斯·乔丹说过， 当数字太过巨大时，就失去意义了。 就是这个清单，不是很好阅读。 如果把网络上，所有电脑上的所有晶片都算在内的话， 网络上共有10亿颗电脑晶片。 每秒有2百万封电子邮件产生。 这是一个极大的数字。 它是一个极大的机器。 它还用掉地球上5%的电力。 这是其明细信息。 如果画成一张规格表的话， 它拥有170千兆电晶体、55兆个连接， 电子邮件以每秒2百万赫传送， 短信已每秒3万1千赫传送， 拥有246hexabutes（10的18次方）储存空间。这可是一个很大的光盘。 有很多存储空间，内存为9 hexabytes。 它的流量 为每秒7兆位元组（TB）。 布鲁斯特提过，美国国会图书馆拥有大约20兆位元组（TB）的资料。 也就是说，每秒就有半个国会图书馆多的资料在这部机器周转了一遍， 这是一部超大机器。
我还发现，1天1千亿次鼠标点击 和五万五千亿个连接，几乎就是 大脑突触的数量。 1千兆颗电晶体， 几乎等同于大脑的神经数量。 这部机器每秒产生 20千兆赫兹突触激发。 想当然的，记忆空间相当庞大。 从刚刚的数据看来，这部机器的规格 与复杂度可以说是等同于人脑。 因为人类大脑的运作方式和网络的运作方式差不多， 只不过，人脑不会每2年成倍增长。 假设我们制造的这部机器 现在等于1个人脑。 以它的成长速率， 在30年后，它会等于60亿个人脑。 也就是说，到了2040年，这部机器， 处理原始资料的能力将超过人类。
我想这就是， Ray kurzweil 和其他一些人想用上图表来表达的。 那这又说明什么呢？这里我想谈几点。 我觉得总得来说是3点 我想说是3项推论。 第一，这部机器正在实体化 在下一个5000天，我们将会 赋予这部机器一个实体。 第二，我们将重组它的构造。 第三，我们将要完全地与之共存。
让我一一说明。 第一，我们手上握着不少东西， 我们认为它们是独立的 但事实上，世界上 所有的屏幕都进入这一步机器查询。 基本上，这些屏幕是入口。 第二，人们所说的云计算。 要接触云网络， 只需要一台通云电脑（cloudbook）， 上面没有任何储存空间， 永远保持着无线链接 结构非常简单。 基本上，你只要触摸这部机器， 云网络就能进行运算， 这部机器就会计算。
有点像是回到 从前的中央电脑概念。 而且所有东西，所有摄影机、麦克风、 汽车感应器等等， 都连接到这部机器。 每一样都会经过网络。 我们已经使用手机连网， 现在手机还没经过web， 但它们将要，也一定会经过网络。 你可以想象。以谷歌实验室（Google Lab）为例， 谷歌文件、谷歌计算器等等， 这些东西都建立与网络之上。 它们都会经过这部机器。 我想每一个位元都将属于网络。 现在还不是这样，如果你工作中做了表格、 Word文档等等，它们目前还不在， 但将会在网站上。它们将会成为这部机器的一部分。 它们会使用网站语言。 它们会和这部机器交谈。 网络就像黑洞， 把一切都吸进去。 每一件东西都成为网络的一部分。 将来我们制造的每一件东西， 都会嵌入一片小小的网络连接器， 每件东西都将成为这机器的一部分。 这机器会无时无刻地运算， 我们的周遭变成网络，每一样东西都互相连接。
到那个时候，我们使用无线射频辨识系统（RFID） 但用什么技术都无妨。关键是 每一样东西都将内建连接到这部机器， 于是，我们就基本上拥有了实体互联网 你可以这么想，鞋子是一个有鞋跟的晶片； 车子是一个有轮子的晶片。 车子的大半成本将来自于 它内嵌的智慧和电子设备，而不是原材料。 很多人认为新的经济结构 将会是脱离现实的， 另一种虚拟存在， 过去的经济结构是原子。 但事实上，新的经济结构应该是 这两种的结合，我们把资讯 和数位格式的东西放入物质世界。 这才是我们期待的。这才是我们 前进的目标，是一个结合一个原子与数位的转化。
所以我相信结论会是， 现有的媒体、 电视、电影、录像等等，将会转变成一种平台。 无论它们之间有多少差异， 在某种程度上，它们将会拥有越来越多的共同点。 所以一些媒体定律象是：“复制没有价值”， “价值来自无法复制的东西”， 象是即时性、认证、个性化 “媒体希望能流通”， 它们之所以是“自由”的，是为了让你能随意使用， 在此free不是指“免费”使用，而是指“自由”使用。 还有“网络效应规则”， 意思是，越多人使用，价值越高。 举例来说，第一台传真机，买下第一台传真机的人 是笨蛋吗？因为没有其他人可以接收传真呀！ 于是他/她成为一个传播者，号召其他人 也购买传真机，因为这样就能使传真机更有价值。 这些就是我们将要看到的影响力。 “注意力就是货币”。
这些定律将会遍布所有媒体。 另一件关于实体化的事是， 类似我们说的，麦克虚汉转化（McLuhan Reversal）。 他说，机器是人类感官（意识）的延伸。 但我说，某种程度上人类将成为 机器的延伸感官（意识）。 因此，透过所有数码照片和相机， 我们拥有1千万双眼睛、耳朵和触觉。 就像Flickr 或Photosynth，一款微软出品的程式， 可以将上千张游客们拍下的照片， 拼贴（还原）成景点的样貌。 某种程度上说，这部机器正看着，每一台相机后的每一个像素。
第二，我想谈谈重建的概念， 网络正在重建。 我先声明，接下来 我要为语义网（semantic web）下个定义。
第一阶段，我们过去看到的 因特网是把电脑连接起来。 也就是我们说的网络， 那是“Internet of Net”（把网链接起来）。 如果你还记得当时的电脑，荧屏上都是绿色的字还有游标， 不能做太多事，如果想要连接， 就要从一台电脑连到另一台电脑 如果想要参与， 就要分享一份资料封包。 然后你需要传递过去，你不能控制什么， 不像电话系统，你可以控制电话的另一端， 你只是分享封包。
第二阶段，也就是现在的连接网页的概念。 过去，如果要到航空公司的网页， 我得先从自己的电脑连到FTP站，再连到航空公司的电脑。 现在，我们有网页，单位变成网页 从一页连到其他页。 如果我想订机位， 就连到航班的页面，航空公司的网站， 我们之间分享的就是连接。 你得打开连接。 你不能拒绝连接过来的人， 无法阻止，你得参与这个概念， 就是打开你的页面，让任何人都能连进来。 这就是我们现在做的。
现在我们要进入第三阶段， 我们连接资料的地方。 我不知道这个东西的名字， 先叫它”同一机器“, 我们开始连结资料。 从机器连接机器 到网页连接网页，现在是资料连接资料。 不同点在于，现在我们并非连接页面， 而是连接网页上的一个概念 到另一个概念，而不是连到另一个网页。 所以基本上，每一个概念 或每一个项目或每一个名词，都会受到整个网络的支持。 它已经能解析到项目，或概念，或单字的程度， 它除了从概念里走出来之外， 它不再只是虚拟，而是会实际地连接到物件。 它会一直向下解析 解析到一个人的资讯，每一个人都有一个独一无二的ID。 每一个物件都 有明确的标识，而且会被连接到 它特定的标徽。 所以在这个阶段里，我可以连接到 特定的航班、特定的座次， 举例来说， 我住在Pacifica,现在Pacifica 它不过是网络上的一个名字。 网络并不知道它是一个城市， 且正是我住的地方。 但这正是我们即将要提到的。 它将会直接连接， 网络将能够自行解读。 它会知道这是个地名。 以后只要看到Pacifica， 它就知道这是一个地方， 还知道维度、精度、人口数等信息。
这里有几个科技名词，都由3个字母组成。 你应该还看过更多。 这些东西都与实现“资料连接”的概念有关。 我要举一个例子， 网络上有10亿个社群网站。 你每进一个就要再写一次你的资料，你是某某某， 你的朋友有谁谁谁。 为什么要这么做？应该做一次就行了。 它就应该要知道你的所有朋友。 这就是你要的，所有朋友都能辨认出来， 你就可以把人际关系带着走。 所有关于你的资料都应该被传送， 你只需要做一次，就这样。 你应该要有这些资料之间的关系网络。 这些资料之间的关系网络。 这是我们的下一步，网络要能理解到这种程度。 语义网（Semantic Web）、Web 3.0、Giant Global Graph 我们还在思考应该怎么称呼它。 它主要是分享资料。 所以你要开放你的资料， 比起分享网页或电脑，对人类而言是很大的一步。 上面的东西， 不只是网页而是物件。 所有谈论的东西、所有产品、所有地点 都会是一个特定额表征， 都会有一个特定的字符让我们直接连接， 我们会有一个“物品资料库”。 事实上，还有第四阶段，是我们还没有到达的， 即使在下一个5000天或下一个10年，也都还看不到。 不过我想我们终将走到事物的互连的阶段。 我可以直接我自己和飞机座位上的一样具体的东向联系起来 这样实际的东西会成为网络的一部分。 所以，我们处在一个 “完全连接”的世界， 每一个物件都内嵌连接。
最后一个概念是， 相互依存。 它永远都在，越近越好。 如果你授权谷歌，它可以给你，你的搜索记录。 我看着搜索记录， 发现今天早上11点我查了不少东西。 原来我是开放的，我是透明的。 我想在这个世界里，完全地个人化，需要你全然地透明。 那将付出代价。 如果你要完全地个人化， 你将需要彻底透明， 如果忘记自己的电话号码，我可以查谷歌。 我们是多么地依赖它，以至于到了那个时候 我不再需要记住任何事。 我只要查谷歌就好了。简单多了。 我们或许会反感，会说“那可真没劲”。 但想想，我们不也依赖着 字母和书写？ 我们完全地依赖它们，这不过是种转变。 我们无法想象没有字母和书写的日子。 同样的，我们无法想象 没有这部机器。 它正在发展一种 人工智慧，并不是拥有个人意识的人工智慧。 这是拉瑞·佩吉（谷歌的创办人之一）告诉我的 这是他们正在努力的方向。 这是他们正在努力的方向。 但是当60亿人同时搜索时， 是谁在查谁呢？是双向的。 意即，我们就是网络。这就是真相。 我们将会成为这部机器。 所以，在下一个5000天，它不会是网络，而会是某个更好的东西。 就像不是电视是比电视更好的东西。 在下一个5000天，它不会是网络 而会是某个更好的东西，它会是个不一样的东西。 我想，它会更聪明，它会有智慧。 不是拥有个人意识的人工智慧， 而是能在合理的范围内预测我们的行为。 第二，它会更加人性化。 它会了解我们，这是好事。 但代价是，我们必须透明化。 第三，它会更无所不在， 充斥四周，我们身在其中。 我们手上的装置会是进入它的入口。
我要给你们的一个观念就是， 我们必须开始了解它不会是web，而会是某个更好的东西。 一个全新的阶段和发展， 更全球化 它是个极大的机器，非常可靠， 比它自己的零件可靠， 可以把它想做是一个巨大的有机体。 我们可与之互动，它甚至超越一个系统， 超越一个与我们互动的巨大有机体， 它是”一“。 除了”一“，我不知道还能怎么称呼它。 我们终会给它一个更好的名字。 重点是，它渐渐形成一种单一性。 再次强调，我不是谈论个人意识， 我把它看做想个细菌 或藻类的东西，也就是我们所说的有机体。
最后，我留下几个字给大家： "世上只有一部机器，网络是它的作业系统" “所有屏幕都通向它，每个位元都在其中” “分享就能获取，让the ONE看懂” 你会弄些这部机器 看得懂的东西。 “那个一就是我们，我们就是那个一” 谢谢大家。
（掌声）
----------------------------
Kevin Kelly on the next 5000 days of the web
The Internet, the web as we know it, the kind of web -- the things we're all talking about -- is already less than 5,000 days old. So all of the things that we've seen come about, starting, say, with satellite images of the whole earth, which we couldn't even imagine happening before -- all these things rolling into our lives, just this abundance of things that are right before us, sitting in front of our laptop, or our desktop. This kind of cornucopia of stuff just coming and never ending is amazing, and we're not amazed. It's really amazing that all this stuff is here. (Laughter) It's in 5,000 days, all this stuff has come. And I know that 10 years ago, if I had told you that this was all coming, you would have said that that's impossible. There's simply no economic model that that would be possible. And if I told you it was all coming for free, you would say, this is simply -- you're dreaming. You're a Californian utopian. You're a wild-eyed optimist. And yet it's here.

The other thing that we know about it was that ten years ago, as I looked at what even Wired was talking about, we thought it was going to be TV, but better. That was the model; that was what everybody was suggesting was going to be coming. And it turns out that that's not what it was. First of all, it was impossible, and it's not what it was. And so one of the things that I think we're learning -- if you think about, like, Wikipedia, it's something that was simply impossible. It's impossible in theory, but possible in practice. And if you take all these things that are impossible, I think one of the things that we're learning from this era, from this last decade, is that we have to get good at believing in the impossible, because we're unprepared for it.

So I'm curious about what's going to happen in the next 5,000 days. But if that's happened in the last 5,000 days, what's going to happen in the next 5,000 days? So, I have a kind of a simple story, and it suggests that what we want to think about is this thing that we're making, this thing that has happened in 5,000 days. That's all these computers, all these handhelds, all these cell phones, all these laptops, all the servers -- basically what we're getting out of all these connections is we're getting one machine. If there is only one machine -- and our little handhelds and devices are actually just little windows into those machines, but that we're basically constructing a single, global machine.

And so I began to think about that. And it turned out that this machine happens to be the most reliable machine that we've ever made. It has not crashed, it's running uninterrupted. And there's almost no other machine that we've ever made that runs the number of hours, the number of days. 5,000 days without interruption -- that's just unbelievable. And of course, the Internet is longer than just 5,000 days -- the web is only 5,000 days. So I was trying to basically make measurements. What are the dimensions of this machine? And I started off by calculating how many billions of clicks there are all around the globe on all the computers. And there is a 100 billion clicks per day. And there's 55 trillion links between all the web pages of the world.

And so I began thinking more about other kinds of dimensions, and I made a quick list -- and was it Chris Jordan, the photographer, talking about numbers being so large that they're meaningless? Well, here's a list of them. They're hard to tell, but there's one billion PC chips on the Internet, if you count all the chips in all the computers on the Internet. There's two million emails per second. So it's a very big number. It's just a huge machine, and it uses 5 percent of the global electricity on the planet. So here's the specifications, just as if you were to make up a spec sheet for it: 170 quadrillion transistors, 55 trillion links, emails running at two megahertz itself, 31 kilohertz text messaging, 246 exabyte storage. That's a big disk. That's a lot of storage, memory -- nine exabyte RAM. And the total traffic on this is running at seven terabytes per second. Brewster was saying the Library of Congress is about twenty terabytes. So every second, half of the Library of Congress is swooshing around in this machine. It's a big machine.

So I did something else. I figured out 100 billion clicks per day, 55 trillion links, is almost the same as the number of synapses in your brain. A quadrillion transistors is almost the same as the number of neurons in your brain. So to a first approximation, we have these things -- twenty-petahertz synapse firings. Of course the memory is really huge. But to a first approximation, the size of this machine is the size -- and its complexity, kind of -- to your brain. Because in fact, that's how your brain works -- in kind of the same way that the web works. However, your brain isn't doubling every two years. So if we say this machine right now that we've made is about one HB, one human brain, if we look at the rate that this is increasing, in thirty years from now, there'll be six billion HBs. So by the year 2040, the total processing of this machine will exceed a total processing power of humanity,

in raw bits and stuff. And this is, I think, where Ray Kurzweil and others get this little chart saying that we're going to cross. So what about that? Well, here's a couple of things. I have three kind of general things I would like to say; three consequences of this. First, that basically what this machine is doing is embodying -- we're giving it a body. And that's what we're going to do in the next 5,000 days -- we're going to give this machine a body. And the second thing is, we're going to restructure its architecture. And thirdly, we're going to become completely co-dependent upon it.

So let me go through those three things. First of all, we have all these things in our hands. We think they're all separate devices, but in fact, every screen in the world is looking into the one machine. These are all basically portals into that one machine. The second thing is that -- some people call this the cloud, and you're kind of touching the cloud with this. And so in some ways, all you really need is a cloudbook. And the cloudbook doesn't have any storage. It's wireless. It's always connected. There's many things about it. It becomes very simple, and basically what you're doing is you're just touching the machine, you're touching the cloud and you're going to compute that way. So the machine is computing.

And in some ways, it's sort of back to the kind of old idea of centralized computing. But everything, all the cameras, and the microphones, and the sensors in cars and everything is connected to this machine. And everything will go through the web. And we're seeing that already with, say, phones. Right now, phones don't go through the web, but they are beginning to, and they will. And if you imagine what, say, just as an example, what Google Labs has in terms of experiments with Google docs, Google spreadsheets, blah, blah, blah -- all these things are going to become web based. They're going through the machine. And I am suggesting that every bit will be owned by the web. Right now, it's not -- if you do spreadsheets and things at work, a Word document, they aren't on the web, but they are going to be. They're going to be part of this machine. They're going to speak the web language. They're going to talk to the machine. The web, in some sense, is kind of like a black hole, that's sucking up everything into it. And so every thing will be part of the web. So every item, every artifact that we make, will have embedded in it some little sliver of web-ness and connection, and it will be part of this machine, so that our environment -- kind of in that ubiquitous-computing sense -- our environment becomes the web. Everything is connected.

Now, with RFIDs and other things -- whatever technology it is, it doesn't really matter, the point is that everything will have embedded in it some sense of connecting it to the machine, and so we have, basically, an Internet of things. So you begin to think of a shoe as a chip with heels, and a car as a chip with wheels. Because basically most of the cost of manufacturing cars is the embedded intelligence and electronics in it, and not the materials. A lot of people think about the new economy as something that was going to be a disembodied, alternative virtual existence, and that we would have the old economy of atoms. But in fact, what the new economy really is is the marriage of those two, where we embed the information, and the digital nature of things into the material world. That's what we're looking forward to. That is where we're going -- this union, this convergence of the atomic and the digital.

And so one of the consequences of that, I believe, is that where we have this sort of spectrum of media right now -- TV, film, video -- that basically becomes one media platform. And while there's many differences in some senses, they will share more and more in common with each other. So that the laws of media, such as: the fact that copies have no value. The value's in the uncopiable things. The immediacy, the authentication, the personalization -- the media wants to be liquid; the reason why things are free is so that you can manipulate them, not so that they are "free" as in "beer," but "free" as in "freedom." And the network effects rule -- meaning that the more you have, the more you get. The first fax machine -- the person who bought the first fax machine was an idiot, because there was nobody to fax to. But here she became an evangelist, recruiting others to get the fax machines because it made their purchase more valuable. Those are the effects that we're going to see. Attention is the currency.

So those laws are going to kind of spread throughout all media. And the other thing about this embodiment is that there's kind of what I call the McLuhan reversal. McLuhan was saying, "Machines are the extensions of the human senses." And I'm saying, "Humans are now going to be the extended senses of the machine," in a certain sense. So we have a trillion eyes, and ears, and touches, through all our digital photographs and cameras. And we see that in things like Flickr, or Photosynth, this program from Microsoft that will allow you to assemble a view of a touristy place from the thousands of tourist snapshots of it. In a certain sense, the machine is seeing through the pixels of individual cameras.

Now, the second thing that I want to talk about was this idea of restructuring -- that what the web is doing is restructuring. And I have to warn you, that what we'll talk about is-- I'm going to give my explanation of a term you're hearing, which is a "semantic web."

So first of all, the first stage that we've seen of the Internet was that it was going to link computers. And that's what we called the Net -- that was the Internet of nets. And we saw that where you have all the computers of the world -- and if you remember, it was a kind of green screen with cursors, and there was really not much to do, and if you wanted to connect it, you connected it from one computer to another computer. And what you had to do was, if you wanted to participate in this, you had to share packets of information. So you were forwarding on. You didn't have control. It wasn't like a telephone system where you had control of a line -- you had to share packets.

The second stage that we're in now is the idea of linking pages. So in the old one, if I wanted to go on to an airline web page, I went from my computer, to an FTP site, to another airline computer. Now we have pages -- that the unit has been resolved into pages, so one page links to another page. And if I want to go in to book a flight, I go into the airline's flight page, the website of the airline, and I'm linking to that page. And what we're sharing were links, so you had to be kind of open with links. You couldn't deny -- if someone wanted to link to you, you couldn't stop them; you had to participate in this idea of opening up your pages to be linked by anybody. So that's what we were doing.

We're now entering to the third stage, which is what I'm talking about, and that is where we link the data. So, I don't know what the name of this thing is. I'm calling it the "one machine." But we're linking data. So we're going from machine to machine, from page to page, and now data to data. So the difference is, is that rather than linking from page to page, we're actually going to link from one idea on a page to another idea, rather than to the other page. So every idea is basically being supported -- or every item, or every noun -- is being supported by the entire web. It's being resolved at the level of items, or ideas, or words, if you want. So besides physically coming out again into this idea that it's not just virtual, it's actually going out to things. So something will resolve down to the information about a particular person, so every person will have a unique ID. Every person, every item, will have a something that will be very specific, and will link to a specific representation of that idea or item. So now in this new one, when I link to it, I would link to my particular flight, my particular seat. And so -- giving an example of this thing -- I live in Pacifica, rather than -- right now Pacifica is just sort of a name on the web somewhere. The web doesn't know that that is actually a town, and that it's a specific town that I live in, but that's what we're going to be talking about. It's going to link directly to -- the web will be able to read itself and know that that actually is a place, and that whenever it sees that word, "Pacifica," it knows that it actually has a place, latitude, longitude, a certain population.

So here are some of the technical terms, all three-letter things, that you'll see a lot more of. All these things are about enabling this idea of linking to the data. So I'll give you one kind of an example. There's like a billion social sites on the web. Each time you go into there, you have to tell it again who you are, and all your friends are. Why should you be doing that? You should just do that once, and it should know who all your friends are. So that's what you want, is all your friends are identified, and you should just carry these relationships around. All this data about you should just be conveyed, and you should do it once and that's all that should happen. And you should have all the networks of all the relationships between those pieces of data. That's what we're moving into -- where it sort of knows these things down to that level. A semantic web, Web 3.0, giant global graph -- we're kind of trying out what we want to call this thing. But what's it's doing is sharing data. So you have to be open to having your data shared, which is a much bigger step than just sharing your web page, or your computer. And all these things that are going to be on this are not just pages, they are things. Everything we've described, every artifact or place, will be a specific representation, will have a specific character that can be linked to directly. So we have this database of things. And so there's actually a fourth thing that we have not get to, that we won't see in the next ten years, or 5,000 days, but I think that's where we're going to. And as the Internet of things -- where I'm linking directly to the particular things of my seat on the plane -- that that physical thing becomes part of the web. And so we are in the middle of this thing that's completely linked, down to every object in the little sliver of a connection that it has.

So, the last thing I want to talk about is this idea that we're going to be co-dependent. It's always going to be there, and the closer it is, the better. If you allow Google to, it will tell you your search history. And I found out by looking at it that I search most at 11 o'clock in the morning. So I am open, and being transparent to that. And I think total personalization in this new world will require total transparency. That is going to be the price. If you want to have total personalization, you have to be totally transparent. Google. I can't remember my phone number, I'll just ask Google. We're so dependent on this that I have now gotten to the point where I don't even try to remember things -- I'll just google it. It's easier to do that. And we kind of object at first, saying, "Oh, that's awful." But if we think about the dependency that we have on this other technology, called the alphabet, and writing -- we're totally dependent on it, and it's transformed culture. We cannot imagine ourselves without the alphabet and writing. And so in the same way, we're going to not imagine ourselves without this other machine being there. And what is happening with this is some kind of AI, but it's not the AI in conscious AI, as -- being an expert, Larry Page told me that that's what they're trying to do, and that's what they're trying to do. But when six billion humans are googling, who's searching who? It goes both ways. So we are the web, that's what this thing is. We are going to be the machine. So the next 5,000 days -- it's not going to be the web, and only better. Just like it wasn't TV, and only better. The next 5,000 days -- it's not just going to be the web, but only better; it's going to be something different. And I think it's going to be smarter. It'll have an intelligence in there, that's not, again, conscious. But it'll anticipate what we're doing, in a good sense. Secondly, it's become much more personalized. It will know us, and that's good. Again, the price of that will be transparency. And thirdly, it's going to become more ubiquitous in terms of filling your entire environment, and we will be in the middle of it. And all these devices will be portals into that.

So the single idea that I wanted to leave with you is that we have to begin to think about this as not just "the web, only better," but a new kind of stage in this development. It looks more global -- if you take this whole thing, it is a very big machine, very reliable machine, more reliable than its parts. But we can also think about it as kind of a large organism. So we might respond to it more as if this was a whole system, more as if this wasn't a large organism that we are going to be interacting with. It's a "One." And I don't know what else to call it, than the "One." We'll have a better word for it. But there's a unity of some sort that's starting to emerge. And again, I don't want to talk about consciousness, I want to talk about it just as if it was a little bacteria, or a volvox, which is what that organism is.

So, to-do, action, take-away. So, here's what I would say: there's only one machine, and the web is its OS. All screens look into the One. No bits will live outside the web. To share is to gain. Let the One read it. It's going to be machine readable; you want to make something that the machine can read. And the One is us -- we are in the One. I appreciate your time. (Applause)