Another thing is:
If machines can do it, isn’t that because we do things basically in the same way?
Which means, if design research is bound to unveil by research how do we design, isn’t it to be fated that we will teach machines how to do our job?
Here it is where there would be a epistemological answer.
If design research will concentrate on the human faculty of devising courses of action batatit batata, yes, machines are bound to do all this. AIntelligence is all about it.
If design research concentrate on studying the results and processess that produce superlative objects (impossible to quantify) other than any object, no, machines will never get an hint on how to do it. The answers will be always philosophical, or critical, or historical, or transcendental, or exemplar, so code writers will be in trouble if they want to translate it into machine intelligence.
Best,
Eduardo Corte-Real
PhD Arch.
Associate Professor
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
PS. Congratulations on 3000!!
[cid:D06107DC-6991-422C-90A3-827D3E65BE27]
Av. Dom Carlos I, nº4, 1200-649 Lisboa, Portugal
T: +351 213 939 600
[cid:image009.png@01D14E3A.80B12DE0]
No dia 14/11/2016, às 14:54, Eduardo A. Corte-Real <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escreveu:
Dear Terry,
This is a situation that requires an ethical or political answer.
You seem to imply that if something is possible to be made, it gains irrevocably the right to be done.
This happened with slave trade, the Holocaust, also with Dresden carpet bombing, Hiroxima’s bomb and so forth.
I’m just saying this: If there is a machine able to make book covers, destroy it. And I’m claiming the same right that you have by saying: It can be done so it will, and you will loose your job!
So I’m using my political, ethical power to say: Don’t cross this line or else… I will raise my red flags and march over all your (or others) bullish techno-entitlement and say (cry) that we humans still have the power to decide and unplug the apparently infinite power of machines.
And I’m not even opening the possibility to discuss if the computer generated book covers might be lovely, fine, better, faster, cheaper or whatever. I’m just saying, with the same preposterous certainty that allows people to say: they will be done, I’m saying: No they won’t.
Best,
Eduardo Corte-Real
PhD Arch.
Associate Professor
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[cid:D06107DC-6991-422C-90A3-827D3E65BE27]
Av. Dom Carlos I, nº4, 1200-649 Lisboa, Portugal
T: +351 213 939 600
[cid:image009.png@01D14E3A.80B12DE0]
No dia 14/11/2016, às 07:09, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escreveu:
Dear David,
Yep - and then we die.
Your account reminds me of work my lawyer son is doing.
Lawyers can make the mistake of thinking what makes them lawyers is the
advice they give.
Yes, they give advice but importantly the advice they give is legal advice.
They can mistake this legal aspect as being their identity = they are the
LAWyer.
What if the legal aspect of the advice can be handled by software?
That would mean a radical revision of their understanding of being a
lawyer.
Can it be done? My son has written scripts to reduce an 8 hour piece of
advice to a 90 minute operation.
Currently he is the only lawyer working in his area of specialisation that
is doing this.
What is his job now?
He still has to tweak the software, review the output for errors and
negotiate with clients.
Otherwise, he spends his spare time writing scripts to operate other
lengthy advice processes.
Or, he has more time for his wife and kids and driving his Mercedes for
fun.
keith
On 14/11/16, 4:54 pm, "PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design on behalf of David Sless"
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
wrote:
On 14 Nov. 2016, at 2:53 pm, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Designers and design researchers from Art and Design traditions seem
absent from designing the software and computer systems changing their
design practices.
Not so, Terry. Some of us have been doing it for years! We were funded by
Apple back in the 1980s and have subsequently enjoyed funding for
designing software for a whole variety of systems that have profoundly
changed our practices.
Also, I have seen the work of others who have similarly extended
practices in art and design by being involved in programming and software
systems design. Many of us are happily at work, working ourselves out of
a job, by forming and re-forming things around us. And then we die.
David
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|