Personally, I find this question of human-technology teamwork in design
that Don describes to be very interesting - at LiU we have recently started
a project that may go in this direction, inspired by our research in
human-automation collaboration in other application areas. I would be very
interested to hear about other groups doing this kind of research, so
please contact me off-list if you have on-going projects or publications in
this area.
Best regards
Jonas
--
http://webstaff.itn.liu.se/~jonlu41/
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 18:24:08 -0700
> From: Don Norman <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: How can we build technology so that people plus technology is
> better than either alone?
>
> ​Reframing the question about technology.
>
> I think the earlier discussion started off with the wrong framework:
>
> Can machines design?
>
> Of course, I say.
>
> Can machines design in a way that inspires us, excites us, and makes us
> envious.
>
> No, I say.
>
>
> BUT: Can people design far better by using machines than they could without
> them? And, similarly, can machines design without people to guide them?
>
> Or even better:
>
> How can we start by considering what people are good at and designing
> machines to complement those abilities, so the combination is far more
> powerful than either alone, so the combination empowers and enriches people
> rather than replacing, deskilling, or enslaving them.
>
> So, let us reframe the question. let us figure out a way to take advantage
> of the power of people and of technology both. Human-technology teamwork.
>
> ---
> Human-technology teamwork. Letting people do what people do best and
> machines do what they do best. Together we can do things neither can do
> alone.
> A calculator is a wonderful Intelligence Amplifier. I'm very good at
> formulating problems. I'm not so good at arithmetic, algebra or calculus.
> Sure, i studied advanced calculus, but solving equations is not a test of
> intelligence, it is a test of perseverance. The creativity comes in writing
> the equation. So let me formulate the problem and let mathematica solve
> the equations.
>
> And not everything we care about can be put into mathematics. Some can
> be put into computer programs. But not everything.
>
> Some requires modes of thought and making that today can only be done by
> creative people. But even this wonderful creativity is enhanced through the
> use of technology, both to refine the ideas and then to help realize them.
>
> People and machines work according to very different principles. That's a
> great advantage. But instead of trying to make use of
> this wonderful advantage, all too often we try to make people behave like
> machines. We don't take advantage of the complementary powers.
>
> It is a good thing that a hand-held calculator doesn't work the same way
> people do: people make arithmetic mistakes. Give people calculators and the
> person+calculator is superior to either alone.
>
> ---
> What's the best chess player in the world?
>
> No, not a machine. Not IBM's Deep Blue
>
> No, not a person.
>
> It is a team of good (but not the best) chess players plus several god (not
> not the best) chess programs - the sort you can buy (a popular one is open
> source).
>
> These teams can beat the best individual computer and the best individual
> machine. The teams exploit the best of human thinking and the best of
> machine exploration.
>
> ---
> Today we automate whatever we can and leave the remains to people, which
> invariable requires people to do what we are bad at, and then when we do
> that badly and the result is a catastrophe, we blame the people. Human
> error. Nope, it is design error, engineering error, industrial error by
> forcing us to do what we are bad at.
>
> We even label human creativity as bad. We are attentive to changes that
> happen around us. this is the source of much creativity. But in the machine
> world we label this"distraction" and call it bad. Let's change the
> equation.
>
> Let's aim for teamwork, not replacement.
>
> --
> a side comment just for this list. This is not an argument against anyone's
> views expressed on the list. Terry, for example, champions rigorous science
> and the power of maths and technology. I am in complete agreement with him.
> Others champion the wonderful creative spirit of people. I am in complete
> agreement with them.
>
> What I want is a world where we don't argue about which is best or which is
> right. Instead, I seek a world where we combine the best of all the
> approaches.
>
> Human-technology teamwork.
>
> --
> No references.
>
> Well, here is one. The NY Times technology journalist John Markoff has a
> new book in which he traces the history of the battle between AI and IA:
> Artificial Intelligence versus Intelligence augmentation. (In the book he
> places me in the IA camp: you got it right, John!)
>
> Markoff, J. (2015). *Machines of Loving Grace: The Quest for Common Ground
> Between Humans and Robots*. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins.
>
> It's a great book. Easy to read, with profound implications.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> Don Norman
> Prof. and Director, DesignLab, UC San Diego
> [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">https://mail.google.com/mail/?view=cm&fs=1&tf=1&[log in to unmask]>
> designlab.ucsd.edu/ www.jnd.org <http://www.jnd.org/>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|