cautious cars and cantankerous kitchensdon norman | 2007

cautious cars and cantankerous kitchensdon norman | 2007

how machines take control

two monologues do not make a dialogue

where are we going? who is in charge?

the rise of the smart machine

thinking for machines is easy, physical actions are

hard, logic is simple, emotion difficult

communicating with our machines: we are two

different species

how machines take control• the current condition of technology – machines taking over the control from humans

• the reason is simple yet contradictory – because they lack power and intelligence...

• ... the example of difference between a powerful negotiator and a lower-level employee – lower-level employee is at advantage

• the aim is to create a nice dialogue between the user and the machine, a mutual understanding

• yet two monologues don’t add up to a dialogue

• each party, human & machine, have to know what the other is doing

two monologues do not make a dialogue• “a technology that gives no opportunity for discussion, explanation, or debate is a poor technology” p.6

• the process of making a decision is more important than the decision itself...

• ... this is because of the necessity of knowing how to reach that decision in order to be able to take over control when something goes wrong

• secrecy & silence of automation promotes distrust

• “... actions are apt to be taken arbitrarily, with the system making gross assumptions about your intentions from a limited sample of your behaviour.” p.9

• major theme of this book, is the necessity of machines to socialize.

• we are different species, sometimes we need to obey them, sometimes they need to obey us

where are we going? who is in charge?• with the usage of microprocessors and computers, machines began to act as if they are intelligent and willful

• technology is useful/helpful when everything is working fine, under certain pre-defined circumstances

• yet, they cannot judge situations that are not pre-defined

• the intelligence of machines come from designers who pre-defines the contexts, yet the designer is not there to help when unexpected arrives – thus machines fail to adapt

• machines may be superior in speed, power and consistency, yet they are inferior in social skills, creativity and imagination

• yet it is not the problem of being right or wrong, it is the mismatch – the clash of wills

• this problem originates from the difference between human and machine, in sensing the environment

the rise of the smart machine• there is a necessity of building up a natural form interaction, done effortlessly, between machines and humans

• 4 examples of such interaction;

1. artist & tool

2. rider & horse

3. driver & automobile

4. automation in “recommendation” system

• a good form of automation is the recommendation system...

• ... as it offers useful things without disturbing your focus, off the side, ready at your will – as long as it stays non-intrusive

the rise of the smart machine• symbiosis – a cooperative, beneficial relationship

• the first three examples require considerable effort, training and skill, to achieve that kind of relationship

• and in the fourth example, it does not require high-level user skills, yet careful attention of the designer – to appropriate modes of social interaction

• the necessity to understand how to establish such natural interaction without training or skills

thinking for machines is easy, physical actions are hard, logic is simple,

emotion difficult• machines’ ability to manipulate real objects in the world is pathetically weak

• machines and humans are different in their perception of easy and hard...

• ... machines progressed in thinking – especially when logic and attention to detail is required, yet physical actions remained difficult...

• ... human and animal behaviour is characterized with emotions, in which machines fail by being too simplistic

• even so, scientists believe in the possibility of effective communication between humans and machines

• but the question is, do we trust the machine, or better the mind of designer behind it, to know what is best for us?

• what they can do best is to offer recommendations, without taking any action

communicating with our machines: we are two different species

• the automatic, intelligent devices must still be controlled by people

• our present path in adopting technology in our lives is in contradiction with our best intentions

• in present, we confront machines trying to interact with us socially...

• ...yet we need a calmer, more reliable, more humane approach...

• ...we need augmentation, not automation

thanks for your attention