In the article Navigation, Suchman argued the objective and plan oriented thinking influences the way people act by the example of Trukese and European’s navigation. It is the most fascinating part to me. Actually there are thousands of methodologies (or logic) among people, from this view of point, it can be said it’s impossible to make a computer / artificial intelligence fully imitate a real person.

Furthermore, the argument of “alive versus not alive,” “machine versus person” distinction becomes unnecessary. In my perspective, the relation of “machine” and “person” or “alive” and “not alive” is not opposite, they are more like polarity in a spectrum. We can always say the siri in my phone is more like a real person than the voice in national grid service phone call because at least siri can search from google for me when I say something she doesn’t understand.

So, how can we measure the “ability to being like a real human”? I think Malcolm McCullough’s article gives us some clues: categorizing the situation and the corresponding action. However, it can be a paradox: when we try to define what is a real person we are ignoring the diversity of people. Is being like an European or a Trukese more humanize?

The other point is, why do we need a computer think/act like a real person? The technology already proven itself knows more than we really do, I believe we should find something hidden in the great amount of information the technology provides to learn more about the real world which already rebuilt by ourselves though technology. For instance, the project Trash Track in the Toward the Sentient City reveals the tracks of people’s daily trash. People create those commodities and never know where they are going after discarded. Hence, in my opinion, we are already create enough things (include create another ourselves in the phone) in the past decades, now it’s time to sense the “situation” we created so far like a real person.