Week 12 - Panopticon, Cyborg - TETRA

Question: Is there a society in machines?

During our discussion, a few keywords came up: Society, power and discipline. The concept of Panopticism is intriguing because it reminds us of self-regulation and feedback that we have been exploring in previous texts. According to Michael Foucault, a Panopticon machine consists of two elements: it can be seen without seeing and this machine sees everything without being seen. In other words, it is an omnipresent supervisor that is “the object of information but not of communication”(Foucault, 200). It regulates the system and makes sure that there are no interruptions in the system. This discussion led to how our society functions nowadays: there’s the government that regulates politics and society while there are the citizens that are being constantly supervised by the higher-ups. Whenever the citizens commit bad acts, they will be punished, thus sent to prison. Therefore, the system does the same thing: the supervisor reacts whenever there’s entropy and regulates the situation in the system.

Concerning cyborgs in this text, I think our society will be very much more integrated with machines, and the possibility for a more genderless reality could become more realized. The cyborg theory is described as a hybrid of machine and organism. A creature of social reality and a creature of fiction. The science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century is discussed by means of cyborg technology being integrated into society and bridging the gaps crafted by higher patriarchal dominance. However, I feel that these two ideas work well together and not at all. The text explains that there is a divide between fiction and lived experience, between science fiction, and social reality. So where do cyborgs factor in? Are they merely a product of patriarchal capitalism, purely created for a military means? Or does cyborg technology play a more social role, creating a more genderless and levelled society? I believe that we have been more frightened of how powerful cyborgs may become, and have not explored possibilities for what a cyborg is, and how could that make an influential impact on us.

2SDAYS - Discipline/Cyborgs

In our discussion we noticed that both texts describe the "mechanism of exclusion" as a way to define what is normal and abnormal. This mechanism is embedded in the fabric of society and the minds of people. The panopticon of the past has now transformed into the technology of today that we each carry in our pockets (smart phones). It is almost an Orwellian construct of society. Like the disciplines, these tools have shelved individuals into a disciplined construct and become a form of self regulating the population. People today are much less spontaneous and carefree than the past. If we were not disciplined, would life be chaotic? The technology we have created has impacted our identities in that we categorize ourselves within the normal and abnormal framework. Haraway claims that our saving grace is the multiplicity of identities and points of view, which we agreed on and feel that this queerness and variety is much more futuristic than the norm.

V.A.P.C - Week 13 - Body/Corporeality/Control

The readings of Donna Haraway and Michel Foucault explain that any individual can gain power through the use of machines. Concepts such as the Panopticon allow anyone to put a number of people under constant surveillance in the effort of correcting others. This idea also works the other way around in that the observer is also seen by various third-parties, so as to evoke fairness. Another important concept within the readings is that of the cyborg; the hybrid of man and machine. By allowing mechanisms to enhance the bodily aspects of organisms, it might be possible to overcome restrictions and prejudices related to race and gender, as well as allow people to go beyond life and death by being ever-present within machines. In addition, these enhancements can also lead to a world where communication has reached its peak and everyone can understand each other, effectively removing language barriers. With humans gaining powers of surveillance, language and the ability control gender and race, would all forms of conflict cease, or would they increase? There might be some who would struggle to find uniqueness in a world where anyone can be anything they desire. Furthermore, the constant surveillance on one’s self and others could lead to issues of privacy and the need to act compliant for fear of retaliation by others. There is also the matter of immortality if consciousness where to be transferred into a machine: would living forever make people constantly challenge their purpose and happiness in life as the world around them makes drastic changes over many years? Despite these doubts, it is undeniable that machines can improve the lives of others and will continue to do so for many, many years.

Week 12 - Panopticon, Cyborg - Ars-onist

How does the manipulation and domination of information define the means of power and control?

How does an enclosed system self-govern effectively? In “Panopticism”, Michel Foucault underlines the asymmetry of knowledge through a non-violent mean, towards a functioning corporeal where each individual’s capacity is maximized. Omnipresence and “unverifiable” supervision replace authority and authenticity in the ontology of ruling. On another hand, the Cyborg theory established by Donna Haraway offer a futuristic, idealistic approach to power through knowledge and affinity instead of mere “identity politics”. By acknowledging the problems of categories and naturalism in political discourses (such as alienation and exclusion), a Cyborg has the power to self-construct and reconstruct, to build its own characteristics and to embrace similarities between human, animals and machines. Should such a society exist, it is still debatable whether it would put an end to the conflicts we face nowadays.

Haraway & Foucault analyse systematic power and control while pointing to a future of an increasingly deep cybernetic society. Both agree that the one with more information gets the most control, and that social order and inequalities aren’t necessarily built, but come from complex and intertwined dominant social systems that are historically in place. This has pushed a separation between the man and the body, the man and the machine, and the man and state. With the rapid advancement and globalization of 21st century technology, there is a push to more intersectionality of different realities between animal, man, and machine. With the analysis of the cyborg, this can push us to a pluriversal future that is more fluid and critical of the systems of [information] domination.

THE FANTASTIC FOUR VS WEIZENBAUM & BROOKS - Issue 10

Joseph Weizenbaum creator of ELIZA grapples in his article over the public interpretation of his work. The fascination and the implication that his program could replace psychologist made questions arise on the topic of technologies place in society, the roles they play in us, the increasing comparing of man and machine, and the limitations he believes should exist in the role technology plays in human lives. Weizenbaum points out an interesting observation which he saw first hand with ELIZA, that we as individuals form strong ties to machines, as they are extensions of ourselves we seem to have no issue with "investing his [our] most private feelings in a computer". The implications this has with our own autonomy and the losing of that in an increasing technological world is a deep question. Weizenbaum clearly seems to believe that there should be limits to what computers ought to do, some things which remain solely in the realm of the human. It's clear why the idea of ELIZA of DOCTOR could replace psychologist would upset him so, to reduce that engaged human interaction to the likeness of a processor would be very troubling to him indeed.

In Rodney Brooks' essay "The Seven Deadly Sins of Predicting the Future of AI" we have a very amusing an interesting reading. Brook's discusses the misconceptions, false predictions, and fallacies that plague the field of technology and robotics. First he lays out four general topic areas of prediction: Artificial General Intelligence, The singularity (praise unto our robot overlords), Misaligned values, & Killer robots. Then he breaks down the seven mistakes: Over and Under Estimating, Imagining Magic, Performance VS Competence, Suitcase Words, Exponentials (sorry singularity 😢), Hollywood Scenarios, and finally Speed of Deployment. The breath and width take to exploring and explaining each of these is both entertaining and interesting to read, and certainly touches on a lot of conceptions we've held at one point or another in our lives (but certainly not since starting CART 210).

Week 10 : Confused Coffee Beans - Weizenbaum and Brooks

In his “Introduction”, Joseph Weizenbaum uses his ELIZA device to argue that there are important differences between men and machines as thinkers. He thinks that science is illusory, which after reading his own reflection of this idea, we can approve on many ways. With the internet and the continuous uncertainty of this platform, his saying about the fact that “has virtually delegitimatized all other ways of understanding”, is totally true. Weizenbaum also strongly talks about the controversy around his ELIZA machine that he thinks are wrongly interpreted. He talks about how many psychiatrists seriously believed the DOCTOR (extension of ELIZA) and how people became emotionally involved with the it, which is indeed not very surprising because the curiosity of humans always surpasses its judgement. In fact, the ELIZA program was the spread of a belief that it demonstrated a general solution to the problem of computer understanding of natural language.

In “The seven deadly sins of predicting the future of AI, Robots, and other stuff”, Rodney Brooks defines what he thinks are mistaken predictions about robotics and Artificial Intelligence. The six misunderstood elements that he points out are: over and under estimating, imagining magic, performance versus competence, suitcase words, exponentials, Hollywood scenario and the speed of deployment

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

S.H.A.M.E Weizenbaum & Brooks

Weizenbaum’s view of what ought to be our attitude towards AI, the search for meaning in life, etc, is misleadingly presented as obviously the correct view. For example, Weizenbaum does not support his claim that a computer program is inherently unable to provide meaningful psychological help and that therapists are inherently better at the task by virtue of their humanity. As is true for many appeals to some ineffable spiritual or philosophical approach to meaning, Weizenbaum does not actually show how this approach is necessary or how humanity is lesser for (as he posits, though one may not agree with this statement) abandoning this approach in favor of a scientific approach to life’s problems.

Conversely Brooks offers a clear and common-sense breakdown of typical pitfalls in AI fearmongering, presenting what we believe to be a far more evidence-based perspective. Brooks’ blog post is also a useful tool for analyzing our own and others’ perspectives on AI.

Our question: What types of future fears about AI ARE valid and pass the “test” offered by Brooks’ seven rules?

V.A.P.C - Week 11 - Brooks and Weizenbaum

The two texts focus on the consequences that AI could have on human lives. However, Brooks essay explains that we should not be too concerned about the future of AI for now, since progress in the field is quite slow. He truly believes that machines could not reach a human’s level of consciousness any time soon, therefore opposing himself to the concept of « singularity », in which humans and machines become one. He exposes the truth about popular fears regarding AI, and debunks them, saying that it is quite unrealistic to believe that machines could render human life obsolete, considering that AI hasn’t yet reached a high enough level in learning, adopting and improving itself.

Our team reached the conclusion that a certain fear of AI is not necessarily entirely bad,  though. Even if it is not yet threatening to humans, it doesn’t guarantee that it’s never going to be. Fear makes us careful, which is, in our opinion something important when it comes to technologies as great as AI. For example, some are concerned by the fact that people could become overly attached emotionally to machines. That kind of apprehension helps to put researches in perspective and makes us want to feel safe as human beings, ensuring that any progress would not put our future on the line. So even though Brooks is quick at debunking any fear one could have, we wouldn’t totally agree with his opinion.

Weizenbaum, in his essay, mostly points out how we tend to blindly believe in scientific facts. We definitely agreed with him, and discussed how people are often naive when it comes to technologies, believing any scientific facts simple because they’re lacking the knowledge to reach conclusion of their own. Science has proven to be reliable in the past and logic is now a necessity for our human brains. Weizenbaum reminds us how arts used to be as impactful as science when it came to information, but are now reduced to simple mean of distraction. As a team, this part of the text got our attention. We saw a correlation with Brooks essay in the way that art is a powerful media of communication and could definitely be a powerful tool to spread knowledge internationally. As we pointed out earlier, fear can be somehow necessary when it comes to AI, but through art, we could possibly (and already do actually) orient fear in the right direction and disclose accurate information concerning AI. Providing a better understanding of AI around the world.

Week 11 - Weizenbaum & Brooks - TETRA

Question: To what extent should we be suspicious of Science?

Both texts offer a perspective which questions the supremacy of Science, not exactly in what it has achieved but rather in what it can achieve. This (not so subtle) subtlety is important to note considering the growing number of people who distrust institutions, leading to flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers for example. Criticizing Science as a concept is fundamental so as it does not become a self-contradictory dogma used in a quasi-religious way. In fact, it would be contradictory to not apply the scientific method on the concept itself. Being aware of the limitations of modern Science does not hinder its power or impact, but repositions it as a tool to acquire situational knowledge; it is ludicrous to proclaim otherwise, such as universal properties or any foresight outside of the realm of probabilities. Thus the importance paying attention to doubts raised by scientists.

The main problem that we see is the lack of nuance attached to some discourses concerning Science as an institution and as a concept: either they are completely dismissive toward it, or overly glorify it. As mentioned above, it is often discussed in religious terms like “belief” while it should not, as it is merely a process and not an end in itself, although many people claim the opposite.

Week 11 - Computer Power & Reason, 7 Deadly Sins.. - Ars-onist

By the means of technology, is scientific dogmatism prone to alienate the human being? What is reiterated in the two readings is that computers, despite what we believe, have limits. Humans tend to adopt a personification towards objects which has us under and overestimate our understanding of machines. Like with Artificial Intelligence, we are questioning our ethical relationship with modern machines, a fear that is understandable but lacking in throughout consideration. Is the world now a computational machine? Where is our place in this computational world? Or is the machine simply an extension of the autonomous man? As Rodney Brooks clearly stated, the apparent efficient competency of an AI-based system on a particular area encourages an overestimated view on what an AI can and will be able to do in multidisciplinary circumstances. This is quite opposed to Ray Kurzweil and his belief in singularity by the time of 2029. Looking past the Hollywood-tainted vision of what role AI will play in the human society, Brooks affirmed that the humans won't become minority on the job market nor in our daily life in a couple of hundred years. Similarly, the DOCTOR bot which was based on the ELIZA application were both served to automate the process of psychological therapy. Their process raised critical questions on blinded scientific advancement. As illustrated by the secretary example in which she was present during the entire development stages of the DOCTOR bot, the author underlines the omnipresent ignorance in the technological spectrum. By attributing human characteristics to the an artificial presence rather than understanding the hidden process, the secretary chose to delegate the complex psychological therapy process to a primitive set of reflective rules. By this means, Weizenbaum questions the scientific dogmatism which encourages a blind faith in science alienating the human being. To this day, the human psychology has a complexity which struggles to integrate logical scientific procedures. The latter infers that there is no predefined process in a chaotic human ecosphere. Therefore, eliminating the human being with automation out of multidisciplinary field is only a trivial imitation of a small subset of the required skill-set.

Week 11 - Weizenbaum & Brooks - 2ESDAYS

The first thing we noted was the interesting contrast between Weizenbaum’s article and Brook’s essay. Brook’s debunking of AI fears is centered on popular fears that relate to the AI and computers in and of themselves. Weizenbaum’s uneasiness, on the other hand, does not relate to AI in and of itself but to human behavior and beliefs around it. Because of this, Weizenbaum’s article piqued our interest the most. We discussed his description of the mechanistic view of humans and agree that people have been seduced by logic and reason. In positing science as the only source of truth, we have come to ignore many other sources of enlightenment, other cultural truths, and the great many components of human life that fall outside the realm of the logical. We found Weizenbaum’s antipositivist point of view particularly fascinating considering his education in computer science, a domain that rests on positivism.

Weizenbaum states that arts used to be considered a source of enlightenment on par with sciences, and that they have become seen as only entertainment. Drawing on theoretical knowledge from other classes, we connected this excision of the arts to the excision of the senses from Western life and thought. We also theorized that arts have been rejected from knowledge making because they are not quantifiable and too sensorial in a world that reifies detached, rational thought.

Finally, we discussed Weizenbaum’s argument that in mechanising the human, we have reduced all conflicts to errors of communication. We discussed the impossibility of communication in cases like the rise of the alt-right, who have closed themselves off to communication: the claim that they would realise the errors of their ways if we only talked to them is futile, because they have already decided to ignore outside opinions. We pondered on the power of language in radicalization and in more mundane situation, like the fears of AI that are fueled in part by the use of suitcase words which mislead people as to the capacities of AI.

Week 10: The fantastic four VS Wiener & Hayles

Wiener gives us the long explanation for why cybernetic systems. In a nutshell the world isn’t based on linear exception-less rules like Newtonian physics suggest – uncertainty and exceptions to rules must be accepted as an essential part of the very set of rules governing our world. Therefore we cannot expect to build machines that communicate adequately with their environment if they expect to receive input that isn’t really just a statistical probability of being the something which you expect it to be. Wiener says that this is the basis on which animal-world communication works, and human-world communication works as well. He says understanding communication is key to understanding society because society is but communication channels. He says machines’ communication will have an increasingly important role in society since there are machines everywhere and there will be more. 

Hayles is much more interesting but who likes Wieners anyway. She says that meaning is a mechanical process which happens inside the body, taking for input perceived changes in the outside world and then processing them to drive more mechanical processes inside and outside the body. “the meaning of information is given by the processes that interpret it”. This is true in the physical and computational world as well. A message can be fully defined or represented by the processes or responses it evokes. Media can be understood in four levels: material, technological, semiotic and its social context. Cybernetics and feedback loops are important because they describe that very notion of mechanical response to information in its simplest form. 

Hayles discusses the implications of this kind of thought in the relationship between man and computer. Especially interesting was this notion that translating message into mechanical responses would lead to the idea of being able to transferring the brain into a computer.

Week 10 : Confused Coffee Beans - Hayles and Wiener

In “Cybernetics”, Nancy Katherine Hayles pushes further the concept of ubiquitous technology brought up by Mark Weiser. Hayles talks especially about what she calls the “third order” cybernetics, that implies both the observer and the system in a framework within which animals, humans, and machines can all be located. No matter what, the idea of “singularity” will take place as part of the human evolution. We want a more futuristic world, and therefore, this is the best way to achieve it. Maybe this could bring the human species to extinction? One obvious point that Hayles and us approves is the fact that the history of human will probably be lost throughout this transition towards the computational world. We don’t think that the creation of a framework merging animals, humans and computers can be done, because however this would be achieved, “singularity” would be the major cause of it, thus probably leading to the extinction of the humans and leaving only the animals and computers into the framework.

In “Cybernetics and Society”, Norbert Wiener defines “cybernetics” has being the science of communication throughout the animals and the machines. He thinks that our systems of communication can somehow be computed using entropy. Wiener uses the system of probability seen with Warren Weaver. His theory of using entropy for machines to operate the information from their environment is quite explanatory and relevant considering his definition of a message: a form of pattern and organization. However, even if a machine can see, feel and interact with its surrounding, the question of sensibility and emotions would still be something to work with, because receiving the tone of the message can be easy, be refracting a responsive tone can be harder.

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

S.H.A.M.E Week 10 - Cybernetics

How does cybernetics differ from AI?

We discussed how cybernetics contrasts with artificial intelligent. We discussed the implementation of a cybernetic system that does not interact with its environment. The importance of the feedback loop and how it affects the fundamental structure of a computer. Humans have muscle memory and we do not need to understand the inner working of our systems to use our muscles.

Modern computers need to be pre programmed to function and don’t have a learning mechanism. Humans and computers have completely different architectural structures. This makes it difficult for humans and computers to interact. We had difficulty defining cybernetics as it covers lots of different academic subject and it is a vast field of study.  

The Visually Impaired - WEEK 10

Hayles's article conveys various interesting aspects of cybernetics. At first, the article stated that cybernetics developed greatly in the 1930s, however instead of vanishing altogether, it spread onto "a broad alluvial plain of intellectual inquiry", meaning cybernetics has inspired and laid the foundation as the general framework. In addition, cybernetics is the center of media studies due to its focus on the flow of information between human and machines.
Secondly, the idea of decon-textualization of information is a very impressive and essential move. Upon this concept, many fields can be applied such as communication theory, linguistics, psychology... Lastly, the vision of human inhabiting a device which seems revolutionary has now become accessible in many forms by modern techonology.

Week 10: Cybernetics - 2ESDAYS

Both articles give a definition to cybernetics - the basic requirement for an intelligent system that has goals. Cybernetics is not only about machine and computation, but also about how things happen and the ways of communication or interaction. The changes in the boundaries between the observer and the system refines people’s perception of the world and available technology. Hayles used the example of human’s Central Nervous System to discuss the cybernetic system, human take in information using sensory organs, cognition or perception make sense of this information and then further interpretation will result in conscious thoughts or behaviors.

Hayles talked about Shannon and Penny whom we studied for the past a few weeks. Shannon’s information theory and Wiener’s approach to the idea that information is not defined by the context or meaning. This idea of decontextualization of information made the interpretation process to be more mechanical and also brings in Penny’s idea of the importance of the embodiment. Medium has become the body and the embodiment remains to be the center.

The idea of probabilities is like a given knowledge to us nowadays. Even in our elementary mathematics or physics class, we know that some of the questions are not realistic in real life. For example, we have to calculate the amount of time needed to fill up a tank with 80 degrees of water. We all know that we are ignoring factors like room temperature, the material of the tank or even gravity. We have to restrain our question in ways which it can deal with. Physics is no longer absolute, it’s only about calculating how probable (statistics) it is going to happen based on the given information.

In Wiener’s article, he stated that "In control and communication we are always fighting nature’s tendency to degrade the organized and to destroy the meaningful;” We had a question that if control and communication are destroying the meaning, what is the meaning in our life? After discussion, we all agreed that life actually has no meaning at all, it is human who adds meaning to behaviors and actions. This idea also coincides with Suchman’s idea of putting meaning in life. Although we may not be able to fully communicate the information, we are somewhat succeeding in deliver the main idea. The process of adding meaning is unstoppable for human, it comes to us unconsciously. However, it is not a bad thing as it forms a pattern which is essential for survival and we can understand others’ pattern better. Most importantly, it makes us happy and stays positive.


Group member - Eugène Fournier, Michael Watts, Liu WenYue.

C+ Gang - Week 10

The first article discusses many ideas surrounding the concept of cybernetics. To begin, the term cybernetics involves the creation of a framework that would merge biological information into computational devices. Shannon-Wiener’s approach to information is to remove the parts of context and meaning from information (disembodiment), supporting the claim of Hans Moravec that the human brain can be simplified to an informational pattern that can be represented in any medium. Therefore, opening the possibility of the mind being uploaded into a computer. However, embodiment and context are crucial to imitate the human neurons as they are complex systems evolving and adapting in diverse environments, making them adaptive systems. Supporting the idea of adaptability, feedback loops are an important contribution to the question of cybernetics according to Hayles. What makes the feedback loops are the social contexts within computational media. Social interactions create constant feedback between humans and computers that keep the information flow going, allowing cybernetics and media to co-construct each other.

VAPC - Cybernetics

Hayles discusses the core tendency within cybernetics to define a framework for understanding humans and machines in similar terms. This produces an inherent tension, between the tendency towards simplification and quantification versus more complex views that resist easy quantification but may offer more holistic understandings. This is comparable to the two worldviews discussed by Penny, of which Hayles clearly advocates for the holistic, embodied approach. Hayes also discusses several theories that seem to redefine environmentally situated and embodied cognition back into computational terms. For example, Fredkin's theories of interpretation that allow for a holistic, multilayered view of cognition (where subcognitive and 'noncognitive' processes are also acts of interpretation and meaning) but simultaneously posit that the universe is a giant computer. We discussed the way this conception of the universe relates to the pop-science/pop-philosophy idea that we (intelligent/conscious life) are the universe looking back at itself. For Hayles, Fredkin's ideas successfully push the boundaries of computational frameworks away from limiting perspectives, but do they go far enough?

Does creating a framework that can encompass both humans and machines necessitate that we see ourselves in computational terms? What does a truly holistic shared language or framework look like?

Week 10 - Cybernetics / Human Use of Human Beings - TETRA

Key Question: How do cybernetics relate biologically to us?

The reading on Cybernetics inspired us to bring the TED talk that we saw last semester called “I listen to color” into our conversation. Neil Harbisson, a cyborg artist uses a prosthetic colour sensor eye called an “eyeborg” that detects colors using frequencies. Therefore, he is able to associate a color to that item by bringing the eye closer to the object. This thought relates to the point made by Pitts where he consider machines and biological organism as cybernetics. The prosthetic eye sensor that Harbisson uses is indeed implanted in his brain, thus becoming a part of his body. This device then becomes a machine that is biological. The argument that Moravec points out that in the future we will be able to inhabit any computational device is similar to how Cyborgs function, since the prosthetic eye is part of Herbisson’s body.  

The two readings we felt complimented each other in discussing cybernetics, however the seconds text went further into discussing the importance of messages and communication in society. We thought that it was particularly important to bring up in regards to cybernetics, that we rely heavily on our various forms of communication, with machines, animals, as well as machines. Freud, who is briefly mentioned in the text states that there is a deep irrational component in human conduct and thought, which we found to be problematic when trying to discuss our ways of communication with machines. This is because, there has been discussion of how the human brain relates to machine, while this statement by Freud points out that perhaps the human brain is much more complex than that of a machine. Though this is something we could debate forever, Gibbs introduced statistics into physics in a more thorough way and explains everything relates back to probability and not certainty. To relate this back to Freud’s comment, perhaps we will never fully understand minds of machines and ourselves, but we can certainly use statistics and probability to further understand our minds and machine minds through research and communication. 

Harbisson, Neil. "Neil Harbisson." TED. Accessed March 17, 2019. https://www.ted.com/speakers/neil_harbisson.

Week 10 - Cybernetics / Human Use of Human Beings - Ars-onist

Does the advent of singularity shackle the meaningful role of cybernetics in technology and how do we redefine the human experience in an advancing cybernetic 21st century society?

Cybernetics have three main stages. First as theorised by Shannon with the information theory there is homeostasis, disembodied information which draws a clear distinction between the information and its content by the means of the quantification. Afterwards, there is a principle of reflexivity represented with an integrated observer in the system. This period came to question the disembodiment of the information. Finally, virtuality considers crucial the contextual presence of the social environment in the computer conginition. Today, it is interesting to consider that the technology mainly embodies the first stage. The latter seems to point that the cybernetics are the foundation of the technology as we know it. Perhaps, we’re only reaching the early ages of advanced technology to see the later stages of cybernetics omni-present. Therefore, it may be that the transcendence of the human mind into a machine is only a complementary stage in the computers evolution rather than a disruptive event for cybernetics.

Information, communication, "robustness" and the question of feedback, etc. explored in the previous readings have been brought back here under the common structure of cybernetics. As the role of communication in society - as Weiner  implied (p.16) (*) - proves its weight in today's technologies, we further question the outcomes of machine-human interactivity. As each generation progresses, the intersection between human and machine becomes heavily integrated. Will the transhumanist vision come true? Is it possible to make the human brain a perfect computer? We are likely on our way toward a further fusion between computers and our organic existence, yes; but the question of dualism (the mind versus the body), the complex nature of human interaction as evoked in Suchman’s Plans and Situated Actions are yet to be resolved.

(*) Norbert Wiener, “Cybernetics and History,” In Wiener, Norbert. The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society. New York: Da capo press, 1954. Pp. 15-27.

Week 9 : Confused Coffee Beans - Weaver

In its introductory notes on the “General Setting of the Analytical Communication Studies”, Warren Weaver eludes the mystery of communication through channels on a very distinctive mathematical method. We have to admit, the use of probability in the creation of information is quite strange but relevant in our modern world. With the new emerging technologies, our ways of communication have double, if not triple, and our vision of how communication works and can be adapted to this technological world must be define. Weaver’s idea of how entropy affects our information is very interesting. The fact that what we say and hear in the English language is 50% free choice and 50% structural to the specific language is oddly true. This principle can be compare to the concept of a computational machine, where half the language comes from the hardware and the other half from the software.

Another interesting point is how channels of communication are affected by the noise of the computational hardware. This refers to Shannon and his way of analyzing the data multiple times to reduce the amount of noise distributed.

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

Week 9 - V.A.P.C. - Warren Weaver

Weaver's essay discusses the implications of communication, and the problems that arise from the transmitter to the receiver. In fact, there are three main levels of communication problems: technical, semantic, and effectiveness. These all play into the accuracy of the transmission, from the validity of the message itself, to the intended meaning, as well as the desired conduct of the receiver. This makes us question the meaning of computer and human interaction: many factors will affect a conversation with a friend, such as sarcasm, facial expression, body language and knowledge and memories of the other person. When communicating with a computer, such machines do not have any of those components, so how does this differ the intended result? What are the implications of a computer responding to sarcasm (most likely confusion) or recalling an inside joke?

If we remove all types of noise and communication problems, would our conversations become less authentic due to the fact that we would be directly repeating information with no possibility of error? The human factor of making mistakes and allowing interpretation is more important than we think: the absence of noise would result in a communication pattern just like a computer, with a set of rules and precise agenda to go through. Would that create a more intelligent and highly functioning society or a more robotic, emotionless machine like human presence? Is it worth trading our authenticity and freedom of interpretation for valid information 100% of the time? What should be valued more?

Recent Contributions to

Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication by The visually Impaired

The article was first published by Claude Shannon and was republished by Warren Weaver with an additional theory of communication. The paper discusses the three levels of communication problems which are Level A the technical problem, level B the semantic problem and level C the effectiveness problem. The communication problem is represented as the Information source that gives the message to the transmitter that gives the signal and makes noise source that gives to the receiver and takes the message to the destination. The problem A) is superficial because the information source from the transmitter is translated into signals and it focuses on the undesirable noise effect. The other problems are more philosophic. The semantic problems are to identify the meaning of the receiver and the effectiveness is to consider the aesthetic through the psychological and emotional aspects of the message. The transmitter of the message changes it in code such as symbols, words, numbers.  The channel of communication has the ability to transmit content outside the source of a given information such as the noise. If the noise is presented in the message the receiver would have many errors and complication to decrypt the message.

The interesting thing in the text is that there is an introduction to a mathematical theory which is a basic theory of cryptography and it is applied in all form of communication. This theory translates languages to another to complete the meaning of the message. This article is introducing theories of the logical problems and the design of a computer. Also it is interesting that the text is questioning if a computer thinks or if he is made to think with logic. 

Warren Weaver - Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication – TETRA

Weaver’s theory on the three communication problems is an interesting analogy of critical design in a broad sense. The procedures in efficient technical transmissions of signals and meaning are closely related to problem-solving methods in creative fields, it reminded us of design principles too. What are the constraints, do we need to compromise between speed and function?

Weaver talks of clever ways of coding and encoding, taking noise into account and speak of informations as a "freedom of choices". This particular aspect of freedom and statistics made us think about the CODeDOC exhibition where artists meet for a single challenge. Languages are defined by grammar and complex rules, but at the same time leave space for individual form or creative expression and communication.

“A dozen software artists were invited to code a specific assignment—“connect and move three points in space”—in a language of their choice and were asked to exchange the code with each other for comments. The presentation strategy of CODeDOC deliberately deviates from the ways in which viewers usually experience a piece of software art, which commonly presents itself to the audience as executed code—the results of written instructions. […] Since the assignment imposed substantial restrictions in format and file size, the contributed projects can’t necessarily be seen as fully developed works; rather, they are comparable to small studies and sketches that capture an artist’s approach." https://www.whitney.org/exhibitions/codedoc

Week 9 - Shannon - 2ESDAYS

Given the high technicality of the text, we found we had less to discuss than other weeks. We remembered from previous readings that it was Shannon who established that it is possible to create arbitrarily accurate communication through redundancy, thus enabling the constant communication found in the Von Neumann architecture. Because of this, we found interesting how this text gives us a better view of how this is executed and how it helped us understand the meaning of information in the context of computers. The fact that high accuracy is achieve through redundancy reminded one of us of previous linguistic knowledge: the redundancy of language serves a similar accuracy purpose. For example, in gendered language, the redundancy resulting from grammatical agreement with the subject allows for a better ability to fill in missing pieces when parts of a message are lost to noisy conditions. We were also interested in how events with a low probability are synonymous with more information because of the greater number of possible outcomes. This reminded us of the sometimes too plentiful available choices in everyday life.

Week 9 - Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication - Ars-onist

Does the communication system introduced in the text represent all forms of communication?

This paper lays out a mathematical model of communication that focuses on how information can be accurately, precisely, and effectively transmitted through a communication channel that results in a “desired conduct”. Based on the Shannon’s ideas, the paper introduces a model that transmits as much messages accurately as possible. Weaver states that entropy/uncertainty is an integral part of communication which can be both beneficial and undesirable to the transmission of messages.

While - true to Weaver’s words - the model can be “indiscriminately” applied to all forms of communication (page 11) as a foundation, there is still more to consider outside of the technical realm. The receiver of a message can send back information in response to the information received, especially in human communication where the place of sender and receiver can be switched from one to another and back. This is not necessarily a "desired conduct"; it doesn’t mean, however, that the communication has failed or ineffective. An example can be found in the form of debate where communication is carried on through disagreement.

Weaver Reading- S.H.A.M.E

After doing this reading we considered the question of how the idea of affecting conduct could be considered. It's a fairly unemotional description of communication, but "affecting conduct" could mean something as uncontrolling as simply wanting an acknowledgement from the person you're talking to. In the context of art, both the message and the intended outcome can be more abstract.

The three levels of communication problems is a helpful breakdown of the issues that can arise even in simple interactions, so they have applications even outside of the field of computer science down to everyday conversation. Thinking of it in this way can help us clarify our own side of interactions on each of these levels.

C+ Gang - Suchman & Weiser

Our discussion this week began with this question: What would allow interactive technology and artificial intelligence, among other things, to become a seamless aspect of our lives?

We started by scanning the text for broader concepts, first coming across the idea that seamless interaction between participants is more than the sum of its parts. We looked at the idea of mutual intelligibility and how the user and the technology need to be on the same wavelength, or 'different participants must define situations and actions in essentially the same way' (Suchman, 43). Along the same lines, we discussed the importance of linguistic expression and indexicality. Essentially, we surmised, we need to be able to interact with machines using the same language as we would with other human beings in order for it to stop being mere machinery.

When it comes to interacting with technology, we spoke about how we need to stop seeing it as such. The idea of the machinery and technical components disappearing and leaving only the product — some form of cause and effect — is explained in the ready-to-hand example of the blind man and his cane within the quote by Heidegger (Suchman, 37). This notion, as we discussed, states that when we truly grasp the functionality of an object, it tends to disappear from our minds. So, following that idea, we agreed that for interactive technology or AI to be seamless, the awareness that they are machines must fade away. However, in order to be perceived as such, these technologies must become ubiquitous and used everywhere. We looked at the examples of pads and etc. presented in the Weiser reading and drew parallels to what it would take to integrate these technologies uniformly within our society.

week 8 - 2SDAYS - Michael Watts, WenYue Liu, Eugène Fournier

How do we solve the problem of human-machine communication? By attempting to make machines behave like humans. The answer seems simple but implementing the solution is a much more complex challenge. If the goal is to have a machine correspond in a meaningful way, like humans do, or acquire a "sameness", there is an intricate human reality that designers and computer scientists need to implement.  Humans have an endless amount of subtleties that are difficult to define and calculate when constructing a machine.  Our language has a long lineage to its roots, and because this is one of the main tools that has helped us advance as a society, it can not be so easily mimicked in a machine system. We are able to adapt to multitude of unpredictable circumstances in daily life. There is also a much larger amount of flexibility to humans than machines. Our conversations are not scripted, they are spontaneous and misunderstanding is a natural consequence of human interaction. Attempting to program this in a computer requires a deep understanding of how people behave socially, and in every possible manner. This can not be predicted to a definite possibility let alone programmed as a strategy for human-machine interaction. The coach observes and intuits, while the machine anticipates a specific outcome. The term "graceful interaction" lends itself as the model for Natural Language Processing. Perhaps today the term "graceful" can be replaced with "fluid". This encompasses the needs in design, learning, and implementation. Intelligence is a fluid and embodied process. Remember Clippy, your Word processing assistant?.... We felt that this was an example of attempting to create this graceful interaction. RIP Clippy... 

We were really amazed by the idea of ubiquitous computing, where the machine is able to recognize the environmental changes that it is in and react to the changes according to the user’s needs. As the author stated in the article, “The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” The ubiquitous machines in different sizes and wireless networks that support hundreds of devices in a single room changed people’s perception and interaction to machines.

Week 7+8 - V.A.P.C. - “Situated Actions" and “The Computer in the 21​st​ Century”

The two readings focus on the integration of computers in the lives of humans on a personal level. Mark Weiser introduced and discussed ubiquitous computing, and since then it has more or less affected the lives of people on a significant scale. Today, the usage of computers has become second nature to some. With the versatility of smartphones and the popularity of social media, carrying a smartphone is similar to carrying an extension of ourselves on a physical and social level. As such, most people would be hard-pressed to give up their devices, because it contains their contacts, tools and personal information. Weiser’s article also predicted many devices that would become commonplace today. The tabs, pads and boards introduced in his article seem to be precursors to work-related key cards, electronic tablets and giant monitor displays, respectively. Weiser’s article was quite ahead of its time concerning the impact that machines would have in our lives.

However, Lucy A. Suchman’s essay shows that there are many problems concerning humans communicating with computers. The concept of language is extremely multi-layered and nuanced; the meaning of certain terms and expressions can sometimes be lost on the receiver. Programming a machine to understand these nuances would be an extremely difficult and frustrating task, as there would be thousands of ways to interpret someone’s sentence. With this in mind, would programming machines to engage with humans be necessary? Conveying an abstract concept such as emotion into a machine would be a difficult task, as the emulation of a human’s feelings could come off as forced and awkward. In addition, computers lack the intimacy needed to hold a meaningful conversation: speaking to a person face-to-face or through text feels a lot more significant then conversing with a series of wires and numbers. Despite these massive setbacks, the idea of an intimate machine is possible, but it is just not feasible in the near-future.

Week 6 : Confused Coffee Beans - Suchman and Weiser

In “Plans and Situated Actions”, Lucy Suchman brings a very important controversial subject concerning the emergence of technologies at that moment in time. She tries to demystify a field of study strongly men dominated.and relate it to the human cognitive science and interaction according to her anthropologist background. She strongly evokes the intelligence of the computer in the modern world. For sure, we have to admit, that in 1985, it was hard for her to sufficiently prove that computers had a form of intelligence and self attitudes to think and respond in the human language - from a binary one. She relates her point to mutual intelligibility and cognitive science to connect the human mind to the computer mind by their similarity in languages. However, what we think is potentially absurd in this emulation is that the computer is not controlled with the English language, there was no way for us to just write English language in the computer and there was no way we could talk the binary language. One important and truthful point that she does bring out is the fact that the shift from mechanical/human computer to digital computers as personified the computers in their behavior and their response to their surroundings.

Mark Weiser gives a good continuity of Lucy Suchman’s work with its short article “The Computer for the 21st Century”. The visual example he brings with the daily life of an office worker are quite relevant of today’s computational technology and an extraordinary step for the 1985 computational science. His concept connects with the mutual intelligibility of Suchman and gives a sort of intelligent aspect to the technology. He talks about the ubiquitous technology as a third factor in the relation between two humans. One important condition of this type of computer compare to the original desktop one, is that it is embodied in our life and its presence is almost unnoticed. A good example hje shows is the use of wireless networks, which is now something we don’t realize anymore but that connects ALL of our devices together.

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

Week 7 + 8 - Plans and Situated Actions & The Computer for the 21st Century - TETRA

Key Question: Would it be possible to program a computer to interpret the underlying significance of expressions or in other words to understand contextual conversations?

The interaction between humans and machines is a complicated one which is explored through both texts. The first one by Lucy A. Suchman explores the subject from a social science perspective while the second by Mark Weiser does it from a technological one. Much harder to read and to understand, the former digs deep into the abstract concepts of human-computer interaction and human language and uses very few examples compared to the latter which is much more pragmatic in explaining how the interaction with future technology should be programmed to allow the “ready-to-hand”, the disappearance of the silicon-based information technology, or rather the naturalization of computers.

One of the main themes emanating from those two distinct approaches would be adaptability. Humans have the particularity that they adapt their course of action or understanding of a situation to the context that they are in through situational actions. A plan of any sort or a conversation can never be completely literal in the sense that adaptation is needed to achieve what is intended because of unspecified events along the way. Flexibility is thus needed.

Week 8- Plans and Situated Actions & The Computer for the 21st Century. The Visually Impaired.

In the essay "Plans and Situated Actions" by Lucy Suchman, the notions of human-machine interaction are discussed at length. Most importantly, it discusses the way designers and programmers alike attempt to integrate human-machine interaction into philosophical discourse, and into the actual technology itself. 

Throughout the course of the essay, Suchman uses the analogy os the European navigator, and the Trukese navigator to explain her position on plans and situated action when it relates to behaviour, and more specifically, computer behaviour and interaction with humans, as well as the fact that plans and situated actions are often confused. The essay is derived into chapters, and in each successive chapter, she explains a different part of either human-machine history, or the ways humans interact with machines and perceive them. For example, in chapter two "Interactive Artifacts" she discusses the ways children interact with machines, and prescribe human qualities to them, such as aliveness, and not aliveness. This qualities prescribed are based upon reaction, or autonomous motion that have a likeness to humans, and yet these children know that those machines are not human. 

It is important to note that throughout the essay, there is a distinct emphasis on natural and common language that humans use, but machines do not. It is one of the more important emphasis of human-machine interactions, that causes disabilities for such an interaction to exist. Once an individual realizes that the machine can understand basic sentence structure, it tends to impose the notion that the machine can understand more complex and nuanced human linguistics, which is not the case. Furthermore, in the next chapter, he goes on to discuss user interface, and how to create a more human-machine interactive experience by making the experience self-explanatory. The machine is meant to have a purpose, and she goes on to discuss the ELIZA software, that uses basic questions for therapeutic purposes. While the responses to the user's input may seem odd, the user does not question it due to the fact that the program is playing the part of a therapist. Basic notions that the software does not have do not seem odd to ask, because the individual attempts to fill in the oddness, rather than questioning it. 

The end of the chapter discusses the reasoning as to why human-machine interaction cannot maintain persistent and complex dialogue. It is simply due to the fact that misunderstanding or failure to comprehend the conversation at hand is a simple commodity in linguistics. The conversation will not die or break down because of a misunderstanding, because the misunderstanding is often quickly rectified with an anecdotal response. In the case of computers, the machine will most certainly break down due to being unable to keep it with the conversation, as such language nuances had not been programmed in. 

In short, the essay discusses why human-machine interaction is far more situation than it is planned. While a plan is a map that can certainly give a good idea of what is supposed to occur, but it takes far more than just a simple map to understand what is going on. It takes a more physical component that machines simply do not have at the time of the essay, and thus cannot interact effectively with the human body. Human conversation and interactions are far more circumstantial and situational than they are planned out maps, such as is human intelligence itself. 

Mark Weiser's essay "The Computer for the 21st Century" is far shorter in length and simply discusses the ubiquitous computer, and the disappearance of the computer into the background of human perception. It envisions the computer as something that will simply fade into the background, hopefully in the next twenty years following the essay's publication, and help limit the internet addiction in the area of information overload. 

It discusses how current computers are in your face, and how one can spend most of their time at the computer without any form of human interaction, while the desired ubiquitous computer would be tablets and such, easily transportable as if it were a customizable book. However, ubiquitous computers do exist, but in commodities such as light switches and house hold appliances, rather than the personal computer itself. The desire is to have computers that seamlessly fit into human life, rather than humans having to fit in for computers.