Reading Reflections 1/23
The map showcasing the anatomy of an AI system was also very eye-opening. It was disheartening to see so plainly the exploitation of labor and environmental detriments of the system. It took me back to what Molly mentioned in her lecture, about what the common person's perception of AI is. To the general public, the mention of AI doesn't generally imply a whole expansive network of systems – especially with considerations of human labor and environmental impacts – as they generally only see or think of the front-end AI entity that is the singular product or service being delivered to the user.
To that note, I found Molly's talk particularly interesting in the way it delved deeper into the more historical applications and use cases of AI and machine learning. In some ways, I was surprised to see the similarities between more historical/modern applications of AI. While in examples such as Cedric Price's Fun Palace – a large cybernetic theater, with movable components – seemed to incorporate a level of technological innovation and involvement that is atypical even today.
I found the section on Calming Objects particularly interesting. The market nowadays is inundated with products or services being marketed for multifunctionality or enabling its users to perform multiple tasks at once.
Diagram
If placed in a common room, or common space, how could I use the collected data to encourage interactions between strangers? Is it possible to create some sense of connection and/or conversation even if there is no verbal exchange?
While working, data collected on a person will show up as a glowing orb on a wall?
Collaborative table/work pods?
Similar to the work pods situated in GHC
Research Questions
How can the data be utilized as a way to encourage socialization between strangers in a common space?
Can collected data be used to enrich interactions between strangers?
Case Studies
Reading Reflections 1/26
One of the things I was immediately struck by from the reading on IoT Data in the Home was the way in which data was described and contextualized. Going back to some of the conversations we've had about AI being a black box, and its descriptors seemingly being intentionally obscuring, I found it very engaging the way Desjardin et al. broke "data" and its implications down into something much more friendly and approachable, through their design teams' speculative sketches. It definitely made me think of data in a completely different way, less as one solid mass or cloud. Going back to their words on "designing interactions where people can imagine themselves in a state of "play" to "offer a reclamation of data for home dwellers" made me question the degree to which we could increase the so-called "tangibility" of data through designed experiences.
Week 3 2/1
Within the reading about designing the behavior of interactive objects, I found it most interesting the statement that read since we are still in a transitional phase of introducing robotic furniture/smart objects into our lives, we more easily make sense of an object's actions when comparing it to familiar interaction partners. I think it's part of the idea that people often seek comfort in a sense of familiarity, and makes me think of how designers often design the front of cars to emulate the look of human faces to create a sense of familiarity in something that is otherwise inanimate. I think in the cause of smart objects blurring the lines between what we perceive as sentient/insentient, designing with the considerations towards an object's personality helps us diminish that ambiguity and can create more unique and delightful interactions for users.
Week 3 2/2
Giorgia Lupi
I found Giorgia Lupi’s talk especially interesting, it made me think back on some of the initial readings we had. My perception of what data is has already changed greatly from how I thought about it before this project was underway. Previously, I thought of data as something digital, rigid that only computers would deal with or process. The way Giorgia deals with data and presents it humanizes it and imbues it with personality.
Even in other artistic installations or interpretations of data, there is still a degree of separation between the beautiful aesthetics of the physical artifact or art piece and the data itself. I think going back to the initial idea I had, despite wanting to have the artifact be a key piece in the interaction, the data still felt like a secondary thought. It felt like a black box, inherently separate from the artifact I was thinking of implementing. Giorgia Lupi’s talk opened my eyes up to all the possibilities that exist when working with data, I liked that in all the encounters of data she designed the data itself seemed to be the art. It made me wonder how one could effectively balance the aesthetic properties of a physical artifact with the representation of data itself.
Comments