:: typebot :: archive ::

:: typebot :: oktober 2004 ::

=C2=AB = September | Hoveddokument | November = =C2=BB

20.10.2004

Man fights machine - = paradigmeskiftet=20 revisited

Det er interessant i forl=C3=A6ngelse af sp=C3=B8rgsm=C3=A5let om et = paradigmeskift indenfor=20 computer- og robotforskningen fra kunstig intelligens til embodiment, at = skakdysterne = (logisk-matematisk=20 AI) er blevet erstattet af fodboldkampe=20 (intuition, bev=C3=A6gelse og adaptivitet), som m=C3=A5lestokken for = maskiners og=20 menneskers indbyrdes styrkeforhold.

Skrevet af chiefBOT

PhD-fosvar: "Mennesket er en=20 maskine"

I g=C3=A5r eftermiddags forsvarede Gert Balling = sin=20 PhD-afhandling, "Mennesket er en maskine". Opponenter ved forsvaret var = foruden=20 forsvarets formand, Finn=20 Olesen fra Informations- og = medievidenskab=20 ved Aarhus Universitet, professor ved Maersk Institute for Production = Technology, Henrik Hautop Lund, og lektor = ved = Institut for=20 Litteratur, Kultur og Medier p=C3=A5 Syddansk Universitet, Rikke= =20 Schubart.

Gert=20 Balling tager i afhandlingen udgangspunkt i metaforen Mennesket = er en=20 maskine som han unders=C3=B8ger ud fra en interaktionistisk teori om = metaforen,=20 hvor s=C3=A5 at sige begge ender af metaforen p=C3=A5virker eller = smitter af p=C3=A5 hinanden.=20 I denne sammenh=C3=A6ng betyder det, at lige s=C3=A5 vel som maskinen = eller teknologien=20 formes i menneskets billede, s=C3=A5 formes ogs=C3=A5 mennesket i = maskinens billede. Det=20 er denne dialektik Balling i sin afhandling unders=C3=B8ger gennem = analyser p=C3=A5 tre=20 niveauer; teknologiske ikoner (ur, dampmaskine, computer etc.),=20 tekno-videnskabelige tekster og science fiction film. I sin = pr=C3=A6sentation ved=20 forsvaret udpegede Balling denne dialektik gennem en r=C3=A6kke nedslag = i=20 afhandlingens analyser.

Henrik Hautop Lund diskuterede som = f=C3=B8rste=20 opponent Ballings fokus p=C3=A5 den symbolske del af = computerforskningen, dvs.=20 AI-forskningen, fremfor den subsymbolske del, hvor embodiment og netop = spiller=20 en stor rolle. Der var tale om et reelt paradigmeskift indenfor=20 computerforskningen med Rodney = Brooks=20 robot-teori - v=C3=A6k fra kunstig intelligens. I den tradition, der = grundl=C3=A6gges med=20 Brooks, er fokus i h=C3=B8jere grad p=C3=A5 adaptivitet og = indl=C3=A6ring. Den klassiske AI=20 abstraherer kroppen bort, mens der indenfor embodiment-forskningen sker = en=20 sammensmeltning af krop og hjerne, af det fysiske og det=20 processerende.
Hautop Lund pegede ogs=C3=A5 p=C3=A5, at Balling burde = g=C3=B8re det klart,=20 at han skriver sig ind i en vestlig tradition, som adskiller sig = v=C3=A6sentligt fra=20 den =C3=B8stasiatiske, fx den japanske, hvor den naturalistisk = efterlignede robot=20 netop ikke er p=C3=A5 tilbagetog, som Balling h=C3=A6vder i = afhandlingen, men tv=C3=A6rtimod i=20 h=C3=B8j grad er i v=C3=A6lten (fx AIBO,=20 QRIO, ASIMO, P3, HO= AP-1,=20 HO= AP-2).

Rikke=20 Schubarts opponentindl=C3=A6g rettede sig naturligt nok mod film-delen i = afhandlingen. Her diskuterede hun dels Ballings myte-begreb (myten som = l=C3=B8gn=20 eller helhedsforklaring), genrebegrebet (Balling synes ikke at arbejde = med et en=20 s=C3=A6rlig god definition af SF-genren) og endelig robotten (m=C3=A5ske = i virkeligheden=20 en diskussion af hvad det menneskelige er).

Endelig afsluttede = Finn=20 Olesen sceancen med at sp=C3=B8rge til Ballings eklekticistiske metode, = en diskussion=20 af historiebegrebet og endelig et sp=C3=B8rgsm=C3=A5l til teknovidenskab = som=20 felt.
Olesen pegede p=C3=A5 at det asymmetriske forhold mellem = teknologi og=20 videnskab er under opl=C3=B8sning, s=C3=A5 man ikke l=C3=A6ngere kan = tale om en=20 videnskabsdrevet teknologiudvikling, men en udveksling der g=C3=A5r = begge=20 veje.
Cyborg-begrebet blev ogs=C3=A5 vendt en omgang, og Olesen = spurgte til=20 Ballings forhold til cyborgen som metafor (Haraway) eller konkret = realitet=20 (Clynes/Kline). Sp=C3=B8rgsm=C3=A5let er ontologisk i den forstand, at = man m=C3=A5 afg=C3=B8re,=20 hvorvidt der er tale om et individualiseret menneskeforst=C3=A5else, = hvor mennesket=20 spejler sig i robotten, eller om der snarere er tale om kollektiver, = hvor b=C3=A5de=20 mennesker og robotter indg=C3=A5r.

Kl. 16.30 var det hele = overst=C3=A5et. To en=20 halv time i selskab med professorer, cyborgs, robotter og = SciFi-klassikere, det=20 var mental-nam-nam...

Skrevet af chiefBOT

18.10.2004

P=C3=A5 legepladsen

AIBO sluppet l=C3=B8s = p=C3=A5 legepladsen=20 i Sony's franske robot-laboratorium.

Skrevet af chiefBOT

Hund og hund i mellem

I en diskussion af AIBOs mulige status som companion species = refererer=20 Don = Ihde en=20 email korrespondance med Donna Haraway, hvor han netop sp=C3=B8rger til = hendes syn p=C3=A5=20 AIBO.

The question about this cyborgian robot as a = companion species=20 is clearly a question which could be put to Donna Haraway. But, as she = put it to=20 me when I asked over email, "Ms Cayenne Pepper and Roland Dog [dogs i = Haraway's=20 house] were not impressed. Smelled wrong and was awfully literal." = [email,=20 3/10/01] And, maybe the dogs are in this case the best = judges.

(If=20 phenomenology is an albatross, is postphenomenology possible? in = Chasing=20 Technoscience)

Og videre (i en kritik af Latours generaliserede = symmetri):=20

There is simultaneously in the modernist and the = symmetrist's=20 positions the temptation to a kind of reduction in one or the other = direction.=20 Rather, and htis has been my point, an asymmetrical but = postphenomenological=20 relativity, gets its 'ontology' from the interrelationship of = human=20 and non-human. Here is where Haraway's dogs actually have it right: = they can=20 tell by smelling and playing that AIBO's responsiveness is literal and=20 not-right. They cannot interact with AIBO as dog, although I = doubt they=20 are making a metaphysical judgment; rather they are finding that the=20 quasi of the quasi-'dog' is forefronted in the interrelation=20 itself.

(If phenomenology is an albatross, is = postphenomenology=20 possible? in Chasing Technoscience)

Men m=C3=A5ske = f=C3=A6lder Haraway's=20 hunde alligevel en metafysisk dom, hvis de har d=C3=B8mt AIBO ude. Andre = hunde er i=20 hvert fald knap s=C3=A5=20 sikre i deres sag [Quicktime, 1.1MB].

Skrevet af chiefBOT

AIBO: Update or = phylogenesis?

Sony har = annonceret=20 (6.10.2004) en opdatering af softwaren til tredjegenerations = AIBO'en, som nu=20 hedder ERS-7M2 og f=C3=A5s i hvid eller sort. Eller: Der er blevet = opdaget en ny=20 variant af Sony's AIBO med en r=C3=A6kke egenskaber, der adskiller den = fra sine=20 artsf=C3=A6ller. Pressemeddelelsen er et glimrende eksempel p=C3=A5 = AIBOs kvasi-objekt'ske=20 kvaliteter. P=C3=A5 den ene side fremh=C3=A6ves AIBOs nye kvaliteter som = medie- og=20 kommunikationsv=C3=A6rkt=C3=B8j (digital video, MP3-afspiller, = photo-attachments i=20 emails), mens k=C3=A6ledyrs-diskursen fastholdes ved at udpege AIBOs = nyvundne evner=20 som vagthund.

Skrevet af chiefBOT

13.10.2004

The industry talking = visions...

...we are faced with the challenge to develop and = implement=20 applications that provide the ubiquitous home system with functions that = enable=20 easy, intelligent, and meaningful interaction with the system. This = requires the=20 design and implementation of application scenarios that bring ambient=20 intelligence to life. The believability of ambient intelligent home = systems is=20 determined by two major aspects: the social nature of the user interface = that is=20 used, and the extent to which the system can adapt itself to the user = and its=20 environment. The social character of the user interface will be = determined by=20 the extent to which the system complies with the intuition and habits of = its=20 users. The self adaptability is determined by the capability of the = system to=20 learn through interaction with the user. The combination of human = specific=20 communication modalities such as speech, handwriting, and gesture, as = well as=20 the possibility to personalize to consumer needs play a major role in = the design=20 of novel applications and services. Finally, ambient intelligent devices = need to=20 express some form of emotion to make them truly intelligent. So, these = devices=20 must be able to detect user moods and they must react=20 accordingly.

(Philips Research Website)

Skrevet af chiefBOT

The ol' Don Norman...

The general paradigm of HCI is of a controlling human = and a=20 reasonably simple machine, one that takes commands from the = person.

With=20 traditional automation, the machine more and more takes over from the = human, so=20 that although the person might initially give it instructions, form then = on, it=20 works relatively autonomously.(...)

Science fiction can be a = useful=20 source of ideas and information, for the best are in essence detailed = scenario=20 development, showing just how a device, e.g., a robot, might fit within = everyday=20 work and activities (...).

The problem with the above three areas = is that=20 in each of them, the interaction between humans and machines is = asymmetrical. In=20 HCI human is assumed to be in control, wheras in automation, the machine = is in=20 control, but monitored and supervised by the human. In Asimov's case, = the robot=20 actually does surprisingly little interaction; once it gets started it = is=20 relatively autonomous.

(Norman: How Might Humans Interact With = Robots?)

Skrevet af chiefBOT

12.10.2004

Design, pets, aliens & = russian=20 formalism

If the desire for familiarity is applied to more = complex=20 machines with a potential for autonomous behaviour, we could find = ourselves=20 living in a bestiary of technological 'pets'.

(Dunne: Hertzian = Tales,=20 p. 36)

A range of possibility exists between ideas of the = 'pet' and=20 the 'alien'. While the pet offers familiarity, affection, submission and = intimacy, the alien is the pet's opposite, misunderstood and ostracised. = The=20 artist, Martin Spanjaard explores this space, believing that: In = order to get=20 used to talking to a machine, one should have one as a pet. A machine = which has=20 no particular function, and cannot be operated, but which responds to = the events=20 in its environment by producing spoken language. Like a cat, which rubs = its head=20 against you and meows when it wants to eat or go outside, or a dog which = whines=20 when you kick it. (D. VAN WILDEN, MACHINE VOICES)

Spanjaard's = robot=20 ADELBRECHT evolved over ten years. (...) The artist does not program = ADELBRECHT=20 to totally replicate human or animal psychology, which results in = unexpected and=20 quite poetic mumblings. ADELBRECHT is an example, as boundaries blur = between=20 ourselves and our digital environment, of where a new sense of = 'alienation' or=20 distance may be discovered. The electronic object does not have to = fulfil our=20 expectations, it can surprise and provoke. But to fulfil this potential, = designers need to leave behind a desire to model the new world of = electronic=20 products in their own, human image.

(Dunne: Hertzian Tales, p. = 37f)

If user-friendliness characterises the relationship = between the=20 user and the optimal object, user-unfriendliness then, a form of gentle=20 provocation, could characterise the post-optimal object. The emphasis = shifts=20 from optimising the fit between people and electronic objects through=20 transparent communication, to providing aesthetic experiences through = the=20 electronic objects themselves.
But if aliens and user-unfriendliness = are to=20 be alternatives to pets and user-friendliness this user-unfriendliness = does not=20 have to mean user-hostility. Constructive user-unfriendliness already = exists in=20 poetry.

(Dunne: Hertzian Tales, p. 38)

Skrevet af chiefBOT

7.10.2004

Kritisk design: nye = vinkler

Mads B=C3=B8dker foreslog os at kigge p=C3=A5 Anthony Dunne og Fiona = Raby's tanker=20 omkring design noir.

Hele traditionen omkring kritisk design = ligger fint=20 i tr=C3=A5d med vores tanker om det post-funktionelle, men samtidig = drejer det ogs=C3=A5=20 problemstillingen mere over mod HCI-feltet, hvor jeg nok i h=C3=B8jere = grad havde=20 udset mig de mere filosofiske og ontologiske problemstillinger omkring=20 teknologiens eller det artificielles status vis-=C3=A0-vis = mennesket eller det=20 naturlige.

Men det er vel heller ikke p=C3=A5 nogen m=C3=A5de = gensidigt=20 udelukkende. Konstruktionen af subjektet bliver nok et centralt=20 sp=C3=B8rgsm=C3=A5l, fordi det har s=C3=A5vel ontologiske som = designm=C3=A6ssige implikationer. HCI=20 konstruerer jo brugeren som et subjekt med bestemte egenskaber og en = bestemt=20 forventningshorisont.

Skrevet af chiefBOT

5.10.2004

WikiWiki

Vi har implementeret en = WikiWiki=20 her p=C3=A5 SittingBOT, til at facilitere den kollaborative del af = skriveprocessen i=20 specialet. S=C3=A5 nu vi betjener vi os af f=C3=B8lgende typer CMC: = weblog, messenger,=20 SMS, email og wikiwiki. Stupid tools, however - Great!!!

Skrevet af chiefBOT

Projektaftale

Vi har s=C3=B8gt Mads = B=C3=B8dker og Jun=20 Yoneyama Petersen som vejledere (begge her fra ITU) til specialet. P=C3=A5 = nuv=C3=A6rende tidspunkt og i=20 den form de skal tage stilling til om de vil vejlede p=C3=A5 det, er = specialet h=C3=A6ngt=20 op p=C3=A5 denne problemformulering=20 og denne projektbeskrivelse.=20 Vi h=C3=A5ber de accepterer invitationen til at v=C3=A6re vejledere, = s=C3=A5 vi kan komme i=20 gang for alvor.

Skrevet af chiefBOT

3.10.2004

Control vs. autonomy

Generally we will need to find ways to balance human = control=20 with the autonomy of AmbI. Both in order for the evolutionary dynamics = to=20 proceed properly without untimely and ignorant human interference an to = meet the=20 raison d'=C3=AAtre of technology: to serve our = needs.(M.H.S=C3=B8rensen: Assistive=20 Ecologies - Biomimetic Design of Ambient Intelligence, = 2003)

Det er vel=20 polerne og positionerne i den balanceakt vi er interesserede i at = unders=C3=B8ge.=20 Sp=C3=B8rgsm=C3=A5let er vel netop om vi kan fastholde = service-perspektivet som=20 udgangspunkt for udviklingen af IT.=20

Skrevet af chiefBOT

1.10.2004

I live eller livagtig?

Whereas [Wiener and his coauthors in their cybernetic = manifesto] argued that it is the systems's behaviour that counts, = Maturana argues that it is the autopoietic processes generating = behaviour=20 that count. As we have seen, first-wave researchers concentrated on = building=20 artifacts that would behave as cybernetic mechanisms: John von Neumann's = sefl-reproducing machines; Claude Shannon's electronic rat; Ross Ashby's = homeostat. By contrast, Maturana and others in the second wave look to = systems=20 instantiating processes that count as autopoietic. The homeostat might = behave=20 cybernetically, for example, but it does not count as an autopoietic = machine=20 because it does not produce the components that produce its = organization.=20 (Hayles 1999, p. 141)

Skrevet af chiefBOT