Dear Terry,
Please forgive this short 400-word note.
Coase (1988) described the origins and motivation that led him to the theory of the firm in an article in the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization.
A copy of the article appears on my Academia page directly beneath “The Nature of the Firm.” I will leave it up until September 27. It is accessible under teaching documents at URL:
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
I am aware that Watson learns. This is part of the nature of its programming and software. This is nevertheless programmed learning, and it is therefore algorithmic and rule-bound using sophisticated rules and algorithms.
Nevertheless, Watson cannot do what humans can do. To rephrase this in terms of the earlier thread, this is why Watson cannot design – at least not as I define design, using Herbert Simon’s definition of making a choice based on a preferred state. Watson and millions of computers can carry out highly sophisticated disaggregated activities that were once part of the designer’s role, but they cannot undertake those core aspects of the designer’s role that require preference, situated and embodied judgment, or true decisions.
There are several ways to restate this.
Watson cannot initiate independent preferences, form judgments, make decisions independent of its program, or experience emotions. Watson is a major advance in decision support systems, but without the capacity to prefer, judge, or decide, all of which involve emotions, Watson remains a support system and not an actor.
To put it yet another way, agency theory does not apply to computers, not even computers like Watson. The principal-agent problem cannot arise. Computers are perfect pseudo-agents for those who write their programs or instruct them. It is possible, of course, for a programmer to serve as a “principal” for the programmed pseudo-agent (a computer) while acting as a true agent who deceives his or her own principal (client, firm, manager, superior). Only an entity that has the capacity for true principal status has the capacity to serve as a true agent. Watson cannot serve as either.
While today’s computers can function as immensely useful tools, no computer now in existence can “serve” humans in the sense of genuine service. A computer can neither decide to serve nor to break its obligation of service. In this sense, computers are not the kinds of beings who can design in Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman’s sense of “design as being in service.”
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
--
References
Coase, R.H. 1988. “The Nature of the Firm: Origin.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Vol. 4, No. 1., Spring, 1988, pp. 3-17.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=8756-6222%28198821%294%3A1%3C3%3ATNOTFO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|