Dear Mercedes, all,
My position is that machines are not actors. They are robots, that work
on behalf of human actors, following human instructions. Their use is
regulated by laws concerning those activating them, and not for suing
the machine for its initiatives. There is no fundamental difference to
setting up traps, no matter how complex the machine and its instructions
are. Non-human actors should be restricted to living beings. Robots and
traps and events set in action by them should be each a different
category, and this is a nice, but different, challenge to model as well.
Opinions?
All the best,
Martin
On 9/25/2021 1:33 AM, Mercedes Menendez Gonzalez wrote:
Thank you for the kind words, Martin.
A brief try, could we find a good example in chess artificial
intelligence? The human and the computer perform equivalent roles as
(participants) players. For instance, the IBM computer named Deep Blue
beated Kasparov in a well-documented match on May 11, 1997, at the
Equitable Center in New York.
Also, with my apologies if I am misunderstanding things.
All the best,
Mercedes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*De:* Martin Doerr <[email protected]>
*Enviado:* miércoles, 22 de septiembre de 2021 22:14
*Para:* Mercedes Menendez Gonzalez <[email protected]>;
[email protected] <[email protected]>
*Asunto:* Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors
Dear Mercedes,
Thank you for your good comments! What we would need now most are real
data examples tracing individuals.
All the best,
Martin
On 9/22/2021 4:31 PM, Mercedes Menendez Gonzalez wrote:
Dear all,
Although I am quite new to this, I would like to contribute my
opinion on this interesting topic, if I may.
I agree that the most suitable option seems to be to create a class
or some new classes for non-human actors. Going back to Rob’s
example, I would say that the bird carries out an intentional action
when it designs and builds the nest with very specific purposes (to
lay eggs that have a specific size, to raise offspring). We could
even think on nest construction as an individual action as well as a
collective behavior.
Best,
Mercedes
*I take the opportunity to thank you for the invitation to
participate in this forum and to introduce myself. I am Mercedes
Menéndez, PhD candidate in Art History at the University of Oviedo,
Spain.
Enviado desde Correo <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986>
para Windows
*De: *Martin Doerr via Crm-sig <mailto:[email protected]>
*Enviado: *Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:16 PM
*Para: *[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Asunto: *Re: [Crm-sig] New Issue: Non-human Actors
Dear Robert,
I support this.
I suggest the non-human Actors to go into CRMsci. It is a
straightforward extension of scope, and has been discussed in the
past. Non-human actors cannot be hold liable, and will not report.
They are obviously a sibling to the human actors, and fall under a
common generalization. In the same way, we have generalized over
physical things in CRMsci.
I think any opinion that animals in general cannot take intentional
actions has been proven non-sense. Conversely, human actions are
often enough instinct driven.
So far, I do not think we have evidence of conceptual objects created
by non-human actors. Whales may turn out having oral traditions in
the future. Bird songs are, however, partially tradition and not
innate, but we miss the creator individual...
Best,
Martin
On 9/21/2021 5:13 PM, Robert Sanderson via Crm-sig wrote:
Dear all,
In working with our natural history museum, we have a need to
assign non-human "actors" to "activities", which is not currently
possible.
I think the easiest case to discuss is the construction of a
(collected) nest by a (known individual) bird.
We have an identity for the bird (and indeed, we have the remains
of the bird!) and we have an identity for the nest that the bird
constructed. We can estimate the time when the nest was made, and
we know exactly where it was made (due to where it was collected
from).
For example:
https://collections.peabody.yale.edu/search/Record/YPM-ORN-131036
<https://collections.peabody.yale.edu/search/Record/YPM-ORN-131036>
Or a dinosaur nest, where the adult and the eggs and the nest are
preserved.
If the bird (or dinosaur) could be an Actor, then it would be
easy - the bird carried out a Production, during the TimeSpan,
which produced the (coughcough)MadeObject, at the Place. However
the only thing that can carry out activities is a human or group
thereof.
Similarly, the nest might have been built by a mated pair of
birds, thereby requiring a Group-like construct for non-human
actors as well.
At the moment it seems like the best we can do is
(beginning-of-existence-of-nest) P12 occurred in the presence of
(bird-as-biological-object), which seems woefully inadequate
semantically as it likely occurred in the presence of a lot of
things, including other birds that didn't actually do anything.
The closer subproperty is P11 had participant, which we can't use
as birds cannot be actors.
This might also relate to other discussions, in particular:
* Instruments -- the instrument is somehow more responsible for
the measurement than the thing being measured. It is at least
"instrumental in" the measurement, be it digitally or mechanically.
* Bias -- that animals cannot take intentional actions is a
pretty biased viewpoint. Canis virum mordet, not only vir canem
mordet. This might be extended to un-observable agents -- a
culture might believe that a ghost, spirit, god, or other
non-physical entity carried out some action.
* Software "agents" -- even if the software is acting totally
deterministically at the behest of another actor, a hard
determinist might argue the same for humans.
We could add a property either something like "instrumental in"
with a broad range (Persistent Item, as super-class of Actor?)
that is less about intent and responsibility, and more concerned
with the required-ness of the entity for the event. Or we could
go further and create some new classes between E77 and E39 that
allow limited performance of activities by non Humans.
Rob
--
Rob Sanderson
Director for Cultural Heritage Metadata
Yale University
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
<http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig>
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl>
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Web-site:http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl <http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl>
--
------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Doerr
Honorary Head of the
Center for Cultural Informatics
Information Systems Laboratory
Institute of Computer Science
Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)
N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece
Vox:+30(2810)391625
Email: [email protected]
Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl
_______________________________________________
Crm-sig mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig
