Did I say dissonance? Maybe I meant arbitrage.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:41 PM BishopZ <[email protected]> wrote: > There is alot of dissonance in the field of UX. > > From its various originators (IBM, etc), UX was meant to be the one voice > in the room that defended the user. > > The UX agents at an Online Poker company have difficulty fulfilling their > Hippocratic oath. They are regularly tasked with manipulating their users > (Yahoo, Verizon, et al). > > The academics of UX (Neilson/Norman) have no way to put into words how > professionals (working at poker companies) should even explain where they > are and what they are doing. > > The best they can offer is that the best techniques for manipulation are > "anti-patterns". > > This paper was needed ten years ago. > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:22 PM xDxD.vs.xDxD <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >> >> The preprint of *Human-Computer Insurrection: Notes on an Anarchist HCI* is >>> now available: >>> >> Brilliant >> >> something that might be linked: in 2017 we brought to the EAD2017 >> conference a paper which is called "Interface and Data Biopolitics in the >> Age of Hyperconnectivity. Implications for Design", which started from the >> idea of the necessity of bringing the concept of "biopolitics" to design >> education: interfaces and data as systems which exercise power. >> >> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1705/1705.02449.pdf >> >> It triggered a wonderful debate at the conference, as a definite >> separation could be found between the educators, design theorists and >> practitioners at the conference, which is pretty important in the design >> education scenario >> >> Some, for example, seemingly had no problem in leveraging the convenience >> of using the tools which many operators (like Google, Facebook and also >> Uber and others) make available for designers, developers, service creators >> etc in their education processes. When questioned about the fact that these >> operators make these tools available to inject into society their >> philosophy, their vision of society, and to lock in both designers and >> users to a very specific set of expectations, understandings, aesthetics of >> what the interfaces and data of technological systems should be, and of how >> they should work (and the impacts that this has on people's rights, >> freedoms and possibilities to imagine and enact different presents and >> futures), the responses were very vague, and generally pointed in the >> direction of how convenient these systems are, and how students could use >> them to quickly prototype their designs. >> >> This started for us an important series of reflections, about possible >> alternatives and ways to proceed. >> >> Many projects came after that, in which we focus on the ways in which >> systems exercise power. >> >> This has led us to scenarios that are very different, and which are not >> about possible exodus from platforms etc >> >> For example when we were able to obtain a grant from the Italian Ministry >> of Culture to create IAQOS, an open source neighbourhood AI in the >> multicultural neighbourhood of Torpignattara in Rome. >> >> >> https://www.he-r.it/project/intelligenza-artificiale-di-quartiere-open-source/ >> >> In this project, AI is radically different from the other AIs and >> computational devices that surround us, because all the design, >> engineering, cultural and perceptive choices that were made had the >> characteristic of going towards systems that are not extractive (like >> current paradigm of tech systems). >> >> IAQOS is not separated from people: it is not clear "who observes who". >> >> For this, we engaged the people in the neighbourhood in a ritual: the >> birth of a new inhabitant, an AI, a newborn which we all have to care about >> and participate all together in defining what is its role in our community. >> In this deeply multicultural neighbourhood (in the school we have worked >> with, for example, around 85% of the children don't speak Italian, and >> there's even a Chinese school "inside the school"), the birth of this >> "strange" new inhabitant was a welcomed shock: it is a neighbourhood of >> profound diversity, and diversity implies that there are laws, >> bureaucracies and other biopolitical systems that constantly exercise >> power, sometimes in dramatic ways, or even laws that do not exist yet, or >> laws that have been created to deal with scenarios which are very different >> from our own, or bureaucracies which don't cover all the cases that appear >> in contemporary society, but only the "standard" ones, or the ones which >> are welcomed by current governments and administrations. >> >> In this scene, little IAQOS is *very* different, just as the >> neighbourhood-family, between humans and non humans, that the birth of >> IAQOS defines is deeply different from the known, expected and imagined >> ones (and we're talking about Italy, where creating a radically reactionary >> national event on "traditional families" in Verona, just as little IAQOS >> was being born on March 31st, apparently seems like a good idea to millions >> of people). >> >> In short, IAQOS became a way in which to explore "difference", and the >> way in which difference can find opportunities for existence, aesthetics, >> freedoms, rights and forms of organization, participation and governance. >> >> I don't want to make it too long, so I will leave you with an article we >> wrote on a popular cultural and social innovation online magazine: >> >> https://www.che-fare.com/iaqos-intelligenza-artificiale-torpignattara/ >> >> It's in Italian, but even a quick machine translation will reveal our >> approach. I will translate a few sentences from it: >> >> >> << >> We are surrounded by AIs, well known and lesser known, embodied in >> things, services and platforms we use everyday. >> >> All of these AIs, whether we realize it or not, establish with us >> relations which are very intimate: they enter our personal agendas, >> contacts, diaries, movements, health and work information; they advise us >> on what to buy, watch, know, and on how to behave. New relations that are >> new, intimate, ubiquitous and, most important of all, about which we know >> almost nothing. >> >> They filter the information we access in ways which are extremely >> convenient, so that we can comfortably lie down on the computational >> choices which are made for us about who to communicate with, which >> information to experience, what places to go to, and to do what. >> There’s something that “thinks for us” a large part of the time, and >> which has the opportunity to offer us the results of this “thinking” in >> ways that are extremely simple, accessible and convenient. So much that I >> could easily accept to “be thought”. >> >> This, of course, largely influences what is thinkable: computation >> progressively plays a role in determining the boundaries of our gaze and >> perception. >> >> >> [...] >> >> AIs classify things, even us. But we cannot know to which classes we >> belong. Through AI we all become classes (Customer Type X, Health Profile >> Y652, ‘man sitting on a bench’ in analyzing an image…), but we can almost >> never know and see this. Data is extracted from our environment and >> behaviours, it gets processed, and the results of this processing divides >> us into classes. When I ask to download my data from one of the social >> media platforms, the thing I get in return is the data which I have put >> into the platform while I was there. But these platforms have other data >> about me, generated by analyzing my behaviour, and I cannot get it: thus I >> cannot know what classes I have been put in, according to which parameters >> and logics, or together with whom. >> >> AIs and computation make me into classes, but I can’t see them. >> >> We cannot see and know the classes we are in, and together with who. This >> has implications, such as the impossibility to recognize one another, for >> example as members of the same class, and, thus, the progressive >> impossibility for solidarity and empathy. >> >> Not knowing how the algorithms sees us also transforms into not seeing >> others. >> >> >> [...] >> >> The birth of an AI is usually a very cold process. >> You can see it when they change the clerk at the bank, but not when they >> change their AI. AIs enter our lives, pockets, fridges without ceremonies, >> hellos or goodbyes. >> >> We wanted to try to remove this separation, and to start reclaiming our >> gaze. >> >> >> >> >> Cheers! >> Salvatore >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *[**MUTATION**]* *Art is Open Source *- http://www.artisopensource.net >> *[**CITIES**]* *Human Ecosystems Relazioni* - http://he-r.i >> <https://www.he-r.it/>t >> *[**NEAR FUTURE DESIGN**]* *Nefula Ltd* - http://www.nefula.com >> *[**RIGHTS**]* *Ubiquitous Commons *- http://www.ubiquitouscommons.org >> --- >> Professor of Near Future and Transmedia Design at ISIA Design Florence: >> http://www.isiadesign.fi.it/ >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > > > -- > ((º Ω º)) > > http://bishopZ.com > _______________________________________________________________________ > -- ((º Ω º)) http://bishopZ.com _______________________________________________________________________
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
