11.15.2009
whoa
whoa
Emotion in machines
Another area within affective computing is the design of computational devices proposed to exhibit either innate emotional capabilities or that are capable of convincingly simulating emotions. A more practical approach, based on current technological capabilities, is the simulation of emotions in conversational agents[vague]. The goal of such simulation is to enrich and facilitate interactivity between human and machine[citation needed][vague]. While human emotions are often associated with surges in hormones and other neuropeptides, emotions in machines might be associated with abstract states associated with progress (or lack of progress) in autonomous learning systems[citation needed]. In this view, affective emotional states correspond to time-derivatives (perturbations) in the learning curve of an arbitrary learning system.[citation needed]
Marvin Minsky, one of the pioneering computer scientists in artificial intelligence, relates emotions to the broader issues of machine intelligence stating in The Emotion Machine that emotion is “not especially different from the processes that we call ‘thinking.’”[7]
Today I had a chance to virtually attend The Nowcasting Seminar, organized by Peter Lunenfeld at UCLA Design|Media Arts. The website states that “NOWCASTING is the first conference to apply design theory to emerging issues in the digital humanities. Showcasing digital humanities projects at every level from Google mapping to super computing visualization, the Nowcasting seminar proposes that learning from communication design, interaction design, and industrial design will be vital to 21st century humanistic inquiry.”
I wasn’t fortunate enough to watch all the presentations but caught Erkki Huhtamo’s “SUSHI, ROBOTS, HUMANS, AND THE CULTURE OF INTERACTIVITY,” Warren Sack’s “INTERACTIVE SOCIAL MAPPING,” and Lev Manovich’s “CULTURAL ANALYTICS.”
Although all the presentations had some ties with my thesis direction. Huhtamo’s presentation was the one I could relate the most to. Applying his theory of three modalities of the Human/Machine relationship—mechanization, full automation, interactivity, and their social, cultural, and ideological implications—to the sushi production process, Hutamo was able to illustrate some interesting trends in its industry.
The presentation caught my eyes when he showed videos and images of robots making sushi, touchscreen interfaces being used to order sushi, and the shinkansen(Japanese bullet train)-inspired sushi delivery system. He definitely makes a good point. Japanese culture has historically valued craftsmanship and formality. But all this took a little turn with the modern day Japan’s obsession with robots. Actually….
I guess there has been a history of obsession towards anamorphic objects. This, we could say is parallel to the circling sushi boat delivery but making sushi with robots is different. It replaces the creation process, which hasn’t been done with the tea delivering dolls. So what makes the sushi making machine so “odd?” so un-acceptable?
I think there are a couple of reasons. For one, it is replacing the historical sushi-making, which was often seen as a work of art, craftsmanship, and if earned, perfection—or the hard work behind it. Replacing the image of a skilled “sushi master” with a robot is unaccepted because as human beings, we pride in the fact that we create things unlike other animals. Don’t agree? Well, currently these machines may not be able to consider the different fish sizes, fat content, texture, and all the other details a sushi artisan would. What if this machine became so advanced that it could do all this and maybe make perfect sushi every time it spat one out. What would happen? Would we still honor the sushi master? What if there was a machine that could write the most beautiful poem in the world every time it wrote something? That’s something to think about.
Now there’s another thing to think about. The perfect irregularities of the sushi made by a sushi master and the not-so-perfect uniform sushi from robots. They feel different don’t they? Did I warp Huhtamo’s presentation a little too much towards my thesis?
“Live performance is an integral part of music. It is my belief that the sophisticated sounds that can be created with computers need to be controlled by an equally sophisticated physical instrument. Keyboard and woodwind interfaces have been created to control digital sound, but this offers poor control of a complex synth, and no tactile feedback that is so important for performance. Performers and luthiers of the past refined specialized instruments, such as violins or clarinets, into quality devices that a performer used to create and control sound. Because of the open and reconfigurable nature of sound today, performers need an open and reconfigurable instrument that uses haptic feedback to inform the user with tactile feedback. This piece is a step in that direction.”
source: http://petemoss.org/qualcrit/fnords.html
_________________________________________________
This project is interesting to me because it illustrates our effort in implementing haptic feedback and other advanced technology attempting to make virtual content as real as possible.
Although I’m working on different key phrases, “the perfection of imperfection,” “an orderly chaos,” and “adaptive perception,” I feel like my binding factors, “communication with technology” fits right into this effort of making interaction more “natural,” “real,” and “humane.” Could I possibly open a new chapter of “humane” interaction between people and technology?
Starfish was developed by Josh Bongard, Victor Zykov, and Hod Lipson, all part of the Computational Synthesis Lab at Cornell University.
This project has been very interesting to be because no matter how creepy & eerie it may be, it definitely stirs a strong emotion in the viewer. All this happens because it is “broken”. Why though? Is it because it is a broken thing that looks like a live creature? Is it because it is trying to “learn” how to walk while trying to overcome its shortcomings? Could I cause the same emotional stir in the viewer even if I don’t use something that doesn’t look alive?
“…the major trends in technology evolution are the same as in biological evolution—- the same drives that we see, towards ubiquity, towards diversity, towards socialization, towards complexity.”
Kevin Kelly - Technology: the 7th kingdom of life
——————————————-
I definitely agree that technology is the 7th kingdon of life. If we see the same trends in both technology evolution and biological evolution, could I introduce “imperfection” as one of the “trends”?
