My favorite part of reading about Richard Stallman's GNU Manifesto is the term COPYLEFT, a system covering most of his GNU-related software. Although Stallman wrote his manifesto back in 1985, his influence can still be seen in many ways, including the word "copyleft" coming straight from the mouth of Remixer Larry Lessig. Stallman's work is so important, in his work to ensure that software created to be free stays free. Although I do not necessarily feel that all source code should be free, especially in a Capitalist economy, I do feel that if it is initially intended to be free it should not then be given a price later.
Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores make excellent points in their criticism of artificial intelligence. I may not be a psychology major, but I have learned enough from a couple courses, as well as my own experiences, to agree with them that it seems impossible for computers to achieve true human-like intelligence due to the amazing, intangible nuances of human cognition. Nothing against Alan Turing. I still feel like the Turing Test is an interesting mode of evaluation regarding the "mental" and conversational capabilities of a computer program, but there is so much that even science cannot fully explain having to to do with our minds. I feel like one of the driving forces behind AI must be a desire to conquer cognition. It is an intriguing technological pursuit, however egotistical it may actually be. I just think that it seems unlikely that anyone could ever really duplicate fully the human mind when we cannot fully comprehend, let alone capture, all that must be included in this duplication. I think they did a good job of capturing the key interaction aspect of computers when they said that, "The computer, with its attendant peripherals and networks, is a machine that provides new ways for people to communicate with other people." Computers are tools for networking with other real people. Nuff said.
Brenda Laurel enhanced the ways in which we can approach computers from a humanistic, theatrical, and otherwise artistic perspective. On page 565 of the New Media Reader, there is a great chart she put together relating elements of Drama in relation to Human-Computer Activity. Laurel also notes how "Star Raiders… is enacted with computer-generated spectacle and music." I like how she attempts to humanize computers using Aristotle's Poetics and according to Donald Norman's foreword of Computers as Theater, suggests that control of technology be taken out of the hands of technologists and put into the hands of people "who understand human beings, human interaction, communication, pleasure, and pain." In the chapter introduction, Nick Montfort poses the semi-rhetorical question, "If computer interaction is considered as dramatic--a heightened, extra-daily experience which follows the shape of the experience of Attic drama--can it also be ordinary and everyday, fitting smoothly into our life?" He goes on to paint a more broad picture, but just address this question, I feel like the answer is YES. Sure, we have reordered our lives, and sometimes redefined ourselves in order to incorporate this "heightened" experience of computers into our lives, but I feel like they have also facilitated communication, organization, business, education, leisure, and so much more in innovative ways that become a part of our daily routines.
I know I have already talked a lot about Marshall McLuhan, but he just keeps popping up! It's always interesting to see how the doors he opened have lead to such diverse work over the years, even work that takes totally different approaches to media. While McLuhan's work was rather metaphorical and rooted in the sensory imagery without a great deal of specification related to digital communications, Bordewijk and van Kaam look at digital media's social role. It's funny looking back at descriptions of early "real-time chat" services, and precursors to e-mail when they have become so ubiquitous today. I found the concept that software could possibly play the role of both service center and a separate individual interesting. As I've said before, I think it would be impossible for a computer to really capture the idiosyncrasies of the human mind, but when people play chess, for example, AGAINST the computer, the cyber-opponent's role seems to fulfill a comparable role as a live, human opponent, minus the personalized nature of human interaction.
First of all, I'm not sure if Langdon Winner actually originated the word "mythinformation," but it's GREAT. It's such a specific way of targeting misinformation and debunking myths. Taking inspiration from J.C.R. Licklider, Winner quotes him, saying, "Computer power to the people is essential to the realization of a future in which most citizens are informed about, and interested and involved in, the processes of government." Winner believed that positive social change would require more direct effort than the opportunities introduced by an increasing ubiquity of computers - the "computer revolution" was not enough. Goals must be articulated before they can fought for, let alone achieved. Winner questioned what social goals were of the computer revolution. As later seen with ICANN, just because an entity screams "new technology" does not make it inherently democratic. The 2000 Presidential Election was the first when the internet was really widely used across the electorate, yet it was the least democratic "election" we have ever seen. Winner aimed to debunk what he felt to be technology-related myths, such as "(1) people are bereft of information; (2) information is knowledge; (3) knowledge is power; and (4) increasing access to information enhances democracy and equalizes social power." He also said beautifully that, "As is generally true of a myth, the story contains elements of truth." He warned against (governmental?) "panopticism," changes in human sociability, and unpredictable rhizomatic power. I suppose the use of World of Warcraft and even Facebook change how we relate to one another, especially due to altered representations of ourselves. I do not necessarily think the social changes are evil, but they do change us personally in a lot of cases. While I completely agree that access to information does not necessarily imply democracy, it does not diminish the chances of democracy either. Barack Obama would not have gone from a lesser known Junior Senator from Illinois introducing John Kerry 4 years ago to our overwhelmingly (in a GOOD way) popular President-Elect in what felt like a very natural progression without the ubiquity of the internet. He ran a brilliant campaign, marketing himself beautifully, and reaching out all over the internet. In order to create positive social change using computers, we need people like Obama who instill hope, recognize and implement successful methods of outreach, and inspire websites like Change.org or even my little class project site (which, like this blog, is meant for educational purposes only, even if it IS very helpful at pointing people in some important directions): JpL for America.
No comments:
Post a Comment