Design with Others¶
Day 1: Non-Subordinate AI¶
To interrupt habitual human-centered thinking and clear conceptual space for imagining AI as an autonomous, non-subordinate intelligence.
While thinking about a support structure for a non-subordinate AI, we didn’t want to create a more efficient or optimized version of it. But rather, we wanted to find a way to set it free and autonomous. In order to achieve this we tried to make AI “trip”, eventhough most structures prohibit to hallucinate. Thus, to support our non-autonomous AI, we used magic chocolate.
Day 2: Collective Intelligences¶
To interrupt the assumption that intelligence lives inside individuals. The aim is to create conceptual space forimagining collective intelligence as an entity with its own modes of attention, wellbeing, and presence, not reducible to any member.
The Reflection¶
How we perceive and use AI is highly limited in our daily lives. We are either thinking about its ethics or asking silly questions to it which limits our perception. We need to rethink about the contept to unlock what we can really achieve and for which purposes we can utilize the intelligence that we call artifical. The current Artificial Intelligence is a chatbot we use for basic tasks, to make our jobs easier, to make daily tasks more efficient. It serves to the mediocricity. It is not ethical. It collects data of other creators and us. How would it look like if we consider an intelligence that doesn’t serve for humans? What if AI is not a tool to help us? What if what we call intelligent is not necesarrily human and our intelligence is not superior? What if intelligence is a relation in between? These concepts are new to me but slightly easier to grasp. To think about an intelligence other than what we really thought reminded me of a book that i read Ways of Being: Animals, Plants, Machines: The Search for a Planetary Intelligence by James Bridle; “To help destroy the idea that there is only one way of being and doing which deserves the name ‘intelligence’—and even, perhaps, that intelligence itself is part of a greater wholeness of living and being that deserves our wider attention, one that isn’t easily classifiable, defined, and by its very nature challenges hierarchy; that there are no single answers or single questions.”
On the last day of the course we speculated on a intelligence that is non-ecological, and indifferent from life. This was the hardest for me. Although it is rather easier for me to detach the intelligance from humans, thinking about an intelligence that is not concerned with life and ecology was tough.
During this course we had amazing guest lecturers with their own perspective towards designing with others that broaden my horizon. Both Ben Ditto, Ruben Pater, Joana Moher