Hi Sonia,
Thank you for your message.
Snip> '.. from the research community the knowledge of design as mental process...'
Hasn't this (and the parallel study of the structure of design-solution spaces and the implementation in software) been the main work of the design research field over the last 50 years?
Yes, I know it hasn't been reported in the design literature but it is reported in technical literature (e.g. in proceedings of the ACM such as SIGGraph).
Best regards,
Terry
--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, MISI
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sonia da Silva Vieira
Sent: Thursday, 17 September 2015 6:32 AM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subject: [SPAM] Re: can machines design?
Dear all,
I find the discussion of "can machines design?" a very interesting one, and therefore I don’t resist sharing some thoughts about it.
Thought and design are both mental processes. If machines can be programmed to think (without error; and the term machine is vast in its many interpretations) why wouldn't machines be programmed to design as well in the future? Can machines become more effective designers?
Programming machine designers, would request from the research community the knowledge of design as mental process. Although we seem to be far away from this achievement, this represents a challenge to the design research community, especially for those who aim for design science building.
I take the chance to quote Alan Turing's seminal paper (1950, Computing machinery and intelligence) along my comment.
The imitation game he proposes along the paper where he poses the question, “can machines think?”, can be compared to this discussion about “can machines design?”,
“We do not wish to penalise the machine for its inability to shine in beauty competitions, nor to penalise a man for losing in a race against an aeroplane. The conditions of our game make these disabilities irrelevant. The “witnesses” can brag, if they consider it advisable, as much as they please about their charms, strength or heroism, but the interrogator cannot demand practical demonstrations. “ p.2
One cannot demand demonstrations, nor claim abilities/disabilities, as we are speculating about it, unless we have facts. But, isn’t this topic crucial for design research?
On one hand, it is assumed that machines don’t make the mistakes humans can do, "It seems to me that this criticism depends on a confusion between two kinds of mistake, We may call them “errors of functioning” and “errors of conclusion.” Errors of functioning are due to some mechanical or electrical fault which causes the machine to behave otherwise than it was designed to do. In philosophical discussions one likes to ignore the possibility of such errors; one is therefore discussing “abstract machines.” These abstract machines are mathematical fictions rather than physical objects. By definition they are incapable of errors of functioning. In this sense we can truly say that “machines can never make mistakes.” Errors of conclusion can only arise when some meaning is attached to the output signals from the machine." p.12
On the other hand, humanly making mistakes (errors of conclusion, that machines don’t do) many times bring change for the better in design and become part of the process.
Then a question emerges,
Are there imaginable “machines” which would do well in design?
what’s the meaning attached to humanly making mistakes (errors of conclusion)? If such underlying mechanisms could be understood, could programming machine designers become more visible in our horizon? Can humans understand such complexity at the present moment?
In addition, and to their advantage, some machines adaptability and self-awareness can be a plus as they can effectively improve their behavior, and perform more effectively:
"In this sort of sense a machine undoubtedly can be its own subject matter. It may be used to help in making up its own programmes, or to predict the effect of alterations in its own structure. By observing the results of its own behaviour it can modify its own programmes so as to achieve some purpose more effectively."p.12 (examples, facebook, linkedyn,…although not totally human-independent).
This is all speculation about the future, but if at the present, some machines already perform some tasks with higher capacity than humans, we might start expecting a surprising turn,
"We may hope that machines will eventually compete with men in all purely intellectual fields."p.20
If Turing’s vision of the future won’t succeed it might become a conclusion that design research (or other research fields) has failed to unveil design…
But if in the future, Turing's vision succeeds, this would mean going much beyond our present capacity of understanding and demonstrating design.
As design is central to human behavior, would design be central to machines behavior too?
Best regards,
Thank you for the discussion
Sonia Vieira, PhD
Pos-Doctoral researcher, UPorto
[log in to unmask]
On 16.09.2015 21:12, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
> Terry
>
> When you model a situation, you select certain variables, specify
> relations between them, and explore the computational implications of
> these relations.
>
> Acts of modeling always omit certain properties and exaggerate what
> the modeler deems relevant.
>
> We have been there before. You see design as solving well defined
> problems which blinds you to see problems that are in rittel's terms
> wicked.
>
> The problem I have with your argument is that you blind yourself to
> see your use of language and objectify or universalized what are truly
> your conceptions.
>
> Klaus
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:35 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Klaus,
>>
>> Many of what Horst Rittel thought of as 'wicked problems' turn out to
>> be tame problems when modelled.
>>
>> Perhaps the most successful approach is the use of modelling using
>> system dynamics as developed at MIT to address wicked problems.
>>
>> There is a very readable transcript of a banquet talk by Jay
>> Forrester who created system dynamics at
>> http://web.mit.edu/sysdyn/sd-intro/D-4165-1.pdf
>> I recommend it.
>>
>> On key to addressing wicked problems is to stop designers from
>> designing solutions and instead to use computers to identify the
>> outcomes.
>>
>> To a large extent, this is an example that supports your position, as
>> it is humans who propose the changes (i.e. the designs - noun form!)
>> and it is the system dynamic models on the computer machines that
>> identify the outcomes associated with each design. The human
>> designers cannot themselves understand the processes involved in the
>> wicked problems. Humans instead contribute the information that the
>> system dynamics model uses and then make judgments about whether the
>> predicted outcomes are good or bad.
>> , This
>> enables the human designers to go beyond their biological
>> limitations...
>>
>> The question then becomes how much of activity to create the final
>> design was done by the computers and software because we humans are
>> biologically not capable of understanding the complexity.
>>
>> The next most obvious step on your side would be to argue that those
>> parts of design activity that humans cannot do because of their
>> biological limitations are 'not design', or 'd'harak' if you read
>> Pratchett.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Terry
>>
>> --
>> Dr Terence Love
>> PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, MISI Love Services Pty Ltd
>> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
>> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
>> Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
>> [log in to unmask]
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
