10.02.2017
- I.A. “Can interaction take place without human involvement or, at the least, is human observation a necessary part of it?…This makes me think of the quote “If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does the tree make a noise?… Will sentient beings eventually be faded out of all types of interaction due to self-regulating progressive computations?. If we as humans are currently making self-regulating systems from artifacts to whole cities then what do humans have to offer than just to be an observer rather than a developer.If these machines develop to become more sentient couldn’t they prosper living in a self-regulating on their own without any human interaction at all? Look at contemporary bathrooms, nowadays, every optimal object is now, post optimal and now physical interaction is needed. One can go into a bathroom and not have to physically touch anything in it. It’s as if you weren’t in the bathroom at all. Going back to the main question at hand, if we humans develop systems and or machines that don’t require our assistance for sustainability then we are a sentient organism are making a new form ecosystem optimization is post-optimal and cybernetics play its role of no precedents. Its new and strays away from tradition. It is neither good or bad at this time but something to be aware of and something to be discussed.
- W.I.I “what is interaction?” Explanation on dynamic vs. static systems (first order, Second order etc..) would be helpful. Was unclear with most of the passage. Main Observation: “You Learn the system.But it doesn’t learn you”. I’d feel that this statement is blasphemy. Currently, computation systems are becoming so advanced with sensory, recognition, statistical analysis, that to say they systems cant “Learn you” is a big understatement” We as sentient beings are programming and computing “smart” machines to know everything there is to know about us. Are smartphones even phones anymore? These machines are controlling our everyday lives and what we do. They seem to be calling the shots of what we can and can’t-do. Being that we have programmed most of these machines through code and scripts, we show a high intelligence and portray a goldy like a matter of re-inventing yourself through our technological achievements but overall when the machines surpass us, humans, then who is really in charge. Who or what is learning who or what. To say this statement when computers where analogical rather than digital and you had to manually use plugboards and patch cables to interact with the machine then, yes we learn rather the machine learning, But nowadays it seems like the roles have flipped and there doesn’t seem to be any methods of stopping it. Is it good or bad? do we as a sentient body have to maybe make these decisions and progressions in order to perpetuate humanity as a whole? possibly. But currently, no signs of “Computers Learning Humans” is at any hault whatsoever.
- W.A.I. Graphical Interaction the dominant paradigm. The section about “Direct Manipulation and how the idea extends the idea of the visual metaphor to a richer model it benefits graphical interaction? “Direct manipulation interfaces exploit and benefit G.I. if the could be further discussed upon it would be helpful.
