in my opinion, glen has it right when he says:
If humans can take advantage of appropriately designed
technology-based or technology enhanced resources and can
then be flexible and creative in using them, we might have
the best of both.
i do not see the point of developing complex models of the conversations
within which we learn emotions and learn to verbalize emotions. we humans
enjoy (or try to avoid) emotions as we engage each other in conversations,
invent new artifacts and create useful practices. what would be the use of
a computer who is programmed to feel something. often we don't even know
our own (human) feelings unless we learn to talk about them (e.g., in
therapeutic sessions where one can learn a lot about one's so-called inner
life).
i do not see the point of modeling what intelligent humans do well. we have
plenty of people on earth with brains to do engage in all kinds of
activities. computers are simply bad models of what humans do. they become
useful mainly when they do something we cannot do. then and only then can
we take advantage of them.
thus, the point is not to automate design but to develop technology that
enhances certain procedures, technology that expands our intellectual
abilities, not replicate them.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn E Snelbecker, PhD, Professor
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:25 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice (was: Robotic
thought)
Hi,
Interesting discussion.
Klaus (and some others) have expressed ideas that have
reminded me of a parallel situation in decision making,
problem solving or a similar topic, some years ago.
As I recall, the comment was that computers are more
consistent in carrying out decision rules and procedures,
but that humans are much better in knowing when to make
exceptions or to try other approaches.
Of course, computer strategies and power are much greater in
power and sophistication now than at that time (and getting
better.
I suspect that this distinction between 'firing' sets of
rules or following complex decision making procedures still
may favor computers or humans. But I also expect that humans
will maintain an advantage in deciding when 'some other
approach, or some other idea' might be better for prevailing
circumstances.
If humans can take advantage of appropriately designed
technology-based or technology enhanced resources and can
then be flexible and creative in using them, we might have
the best of both.
Just a few thoughts to consider.
Glenn Snelbecker
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:54:24 -0500
>From: Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice
(was: Robotic thought)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>fil et al.
>
>sure we need humans to do designing. but this does not
mean that we could
>provide computational design aids, methods. for example,
the technique of
>defining variables and explore all alternatives that their
systematic
>variation offers can be used to select a solution we might
not have found.
>but, as i said earlier, the choice of variables cannot be
done by a
>computer. the choice of the decision criterion for picking
satisfactory
>solutions out of all possibilities cannot be done by a
computer. there are
>some mathematical proofs found that way which were not
anticipated by
>mathematicians designing the theory proven algorithms, but
these are rare in
>fact, and not necessary more elegant.
>
>klaus
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and
>related research in Design [mailto:PHD-
[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
>Of Filippo Salustri
>Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:42 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice
(was: Robotic
>thought)
>
>
>Klaus et al,
>
>That's why I work on the assumption that for practical
concerns we need
>humans to do designing.
>
>But the history of science and technology has basically
been a series of
>demonstrations of "Oh lookie! It *is* possible after
all!". If I were
>a betting man, I'd bet on science and technology and the
humans who make
>it happen, to come up with interesting new kinds of
solutions. Someday.
>
>Cheers.
>Fil
>
>Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>> terry, glen, fil.
>> [...]
>> this is where finding of automatic solutions is stuck:
(a) by the
>conception
>> of a cartesian space, (b) by the necessarily non-
automatic (human)
>> definition of what is considered variable, (c) by the
size of the space
>> created. and (d) by the difficulty if not impossibility
to define an
>> algorithm that replicates human judgment of the
variations this method
>> creates.
>>
>> to talk about automatig or computational design means
overcomings all four
>> problems. good luck
>>
>> klaus
>
>--
>Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>Ryerson University
>350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
>Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>Fax: 416/979-5265
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
Glenn E. Snelbecker, Ph.D., Professor, Temple University
|