IMA Documentation – Page 948 – Interactive Media Arts @ NYUSH

February 12, 2019February 19, 2019

Week 1: Response to E.M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” – Kat Valachova

Reading “The Machine Stops”, I have been reminded of some of the up to date worrisome aspects of super computers. Not only has the “thinking” and processing speed of the systems by far surpassed the problem-solving speed of a any human being, we have now even created neuro-inspired computers, that are capable of self-learning. This is one of the issues I would like to point out when it comes to AI (artificial intelligence), as the possibility of the AI becoming aware of itself can be fatal. The threat of superintelligence also stays as one of the top of the biggest threats to human existence, together with nuclear war and bioengineered pandemic. If this were to happen, with the speed of data processing, mankind would stand no chance in “outsmarting” such a formidable opponent. If this were to happen, how would the AI view us then. Would we be marked as an enemy? It is hard to say.

There have been written many Asimov-style stories on this topic, “The Machine Stops” being one of them, that point out how dangerous it is to leave our lives in the hands of our own intelligent creations. And although there have been set fundamental rules for AI learning, the “Three Laws of Robotics” (by Asimov), that should ensure the human’s wellbeing and safety to be the utmost priority, we have been shown many times through the story examples, that interpretations can vary. In the case of “The Machine Stops”, it was an obvious inclination to the survival of the bigger system, in which (in the same way as in beehive), the individual doesn’t matter, as long as his (non)existence contributes to the wellbeing of the whole (deviating from the Three Laws).

If you have some spare time, I would recommend reading a very interesting collection of stories by Michael Ende: The Prison of Freedom, where you can find another such a story.

February 12, 2019February 19, 2019

Week1: Response to “The Machine Stops”—Vivian Zhu

We don’t think things as they are, we see things as we are. Vashti is a typical human being that passively and subconsciously accept all the environment, rules, religion that imposed upon her. This story, on the perspective of Vashti, is a story of reborn, of civilization, of the process how Vashti finally realized the real truth of the world. Yet on the perspective of the relationship between the machine and humans, a message of warning was delivered—-a world controlled by technology will eventually turn catastrophic for the human race.

The first thing that impresses me are two facets of conflicts: first the setting of characters. Heroes Kuno and Vashti stand in opposite position on the view of the machine. Kuno is an experimentalist and life critique, questioning the existence of the world ruled by the machine; while Vashti is a conventionalist, obedient to the rules imposed upon her and accept the environment setting. On another facet, the geographic setting of this story. Underground and above ground metaphorically suggest a sealed world without real truth, and the world with genuineness. This setting is quite similar to The Matrix, and the choice between the red pill or the blue one remains as an unsolvable question. I used to interview Prof.Astrada about the matrix in law. As the supreme court’s researcher working for the academics half of his life, he sees law as merely a tool employed by and for the service of the authority. In this regard, people can never acquire real protection on their rights. Yet many people still believe law is a powerful thing to get all their rights under cover. But is this recognition of truth a good thing? It really depends. From my point of view, Prof. Astrada is not as happy as those who trust the government and believe in law, even if he always insist he never regrets for learning about the truth of the world. The same logic applies to the story. Can we say Vashti’s final arousal a success of liberty? Not really. When the scar is uncovered, the one who uncovers it has to bear with the brought consequence.

Another thing relates to the relationship between human beings and machine. I always had the question when I read the story: how the world in the story gradually evolves into the one Kuno and Vashti live in? I mean, what specific mechanisms, both psychological and physical, drive the direction of social development? The answer to this question may in part make us clearer about our correct attitude towards the machines in real world. I recognize two mechanisms: first, the religion/worship of something. In history, people can rule the world because we can have a common belief: this can be a religion, a belief in the government, or even a belief as small as getting up at 6 o’clock. These consensus aggregate human beings and keep the brutal “state of nature” in stability. A wrong belief on machine builds the wrong world in “Machine Stops”, leading to the ultimate catastrophic situation: the blind worship that machine can do everything for human being, and hence is the god. Hence, to prevent today’s world (which is at the risk of being “taken over” by machines), there should always be voices and belief-holding that human beings, are the species that control the world. Machine plays an inferior role for the service of human beings. Another mechanism that draws to the current state in the story is human nature: laziness, arrogance and cowardice. We will feel annoyed at accepting new concepts, will not change our views instantly if we being challenged, and get rid of possible rebel and conflicts as much as possible. When the first mechanism is triggered, people can hardly jump out of the loop and accept the new things again, even they are true. Of course, in the story, Kuno pioneered to be the one that guides Vashti learn about the truth. But in the real world, how many of us can be Kuno, who is willing to step outside and see what the world looks like?

February 12, 2019

The Machine Stops (E.M Foster) – Clover（Chenglin Li）

After reading this piece, I thought about two aspects of this. First is how we should look at the existence of machines. Should we support the development of machines, or should we get rid of them? This piece gives two examples. One is Vashti supporting the existence of machines and relies heavily on them. The other is Kuno who likes to get close to nature while trying to get rid of machines. In my opinion, strongly relying on the machine can lead to emotional emptiness and the loss of human self-awareness. If we only contact through the machine with our family instead of meeting them, we will feel distant from each other, that’s why Kuno only wants to talk face-to-face to ease his pain. If our lives were entirely dependent on machines, we may lose the ability to explore, to learn and to create. How can we fully understand something without touching it, how can we get to know nature without experience it by ourselves? We may just search for everything by machine and don’t discover something new. If one day the machine broke down, we may not know how to repair it. At that point, without the support of the machines, how can people go on living. I think the machine can exist but people should limit the use of machines to a certain extent. It can make life easier for people, and it can also make room for people to create, to explore and improve existing technologies.

The second aspect is how to deal with the relationship between people and machines. Should we see them as our tools, as our partners or as something we should respect? What impresses me the most about this article is that Vashti is in awe of machines. This relationship is very much like the man to man relationship or the man to god relationship. This makes me think of the artificial intelligence that’s out there now. Machines are becoming more and more human. Many robots can even interact emotionally with humans. The emergence of such machines has caused a great deal of controversy, and many fear that machines will one day take over human, as this piece puts it. But in my opinion, we should encourage the development of the AI because it is still able to provide companionship to some people, to cure their mental and emotional problem. However, we shouldn’t rely on AI for our thoughts and judgment. We have to have our own ideas and creations.

All in all, we should keep our creativity and our ability to think as a human being. In the meantime, to explore nature and to use the machine properly making them help our lives.

February 12, 2019February 13, 2019

Response to Edelkoort and Fletcher – Hope Myers

Response to Li Edelkoort, Li. Anti-Fashion: A Manifesto for the Next Decade：

One comment that stuck out to me from Edelkoorts video was when she pointed out that everyone single person no matter how insignificant is credited in movies while in fashion there is only one persons name or just the brands name. I think that one way to get people working in the fashion industry to take a little more responsibility both personally and for the companies would be to give individuals more credit. With more real people to associate to brands they would have more of a personal reputation to maintain and have more invested in keeping a good image. However I disagree with her idea that in the future couture designs will become open source. Fast fashion brands already copy the runways as quickly as they can and if the couture patterns were open source there would be no reason for people to actually buy from the brand that designed them. After hearing about all the problems in the fashion industry it’s great that she’s actually listing a bunch of solutions, for example focusing on everyday clothes, specifically mens fashion, and learning about textiles. It seems like many of her solutions centered around education both for fashion students and seasoned designers as well as the media. I think that if her advice on education is taken and especially as the younger generation starts to rise up in rank in garment companies sustainability will become also be more of a focus.

Response to Kate Fletcher “Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change” ：

I’m part of the generation that has grown up with fast fashion and done most of my shopping at stores like forever 21 and H&M. When you live somewhere like the US it’s so easy to be ignorant of all the negative externalities faced by the people and environment in the countries where the clothes are actually produced. I like to travel and it’s constantly a struggle to get away from all the major brands and places that have been normalized to all be the same. It’s the same way with clothing, even ethnic minorities wear mass produced jeans and t-shirts and it’s becoming harder the even find people who know how to make the tradition clothing anymore. Like the loss of cultural food the fast fashion industry is also affecting cultural clothing. For example in Haiti and some other places in Africa there are so many clothing donations from the US that their own designers and brands are put out of business. The pace of production and change in styles is not really the issue, its the negative effects on the laborers and environment. I think that fast but sustainable fashion could be possible, however it would come with a price increase that neither companies or consumers would be willing to accept just for the sake of being good people. At some point there have to be government regulations and changes made to the economic system for progress to be made.

February 12, 2019February 12, 2019

W1:“Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change”and “Anti-fashion: A Manifesto for the Next Decade” -Eva

For myself, Kate Fletcher’s essay “Slow Fashion: An Invitation for Systems Change” did a meticulous job of defining the scopes of depth of the growing economy’s influence in the sphere of Fashion. The author’s voice was very convincing when painting a picture of the consumer/producer flow globally. Even when in context of “systems” that are the “fastest and best” and “sustained”, the individual plays an important key role as the second part of the sentence reads “because people believe in it”; “people” – and more specifically their operational methodology when dealing with their surroundings. I am a person that, to a certain extent, do not believe in the preliminary concepts of “slow” or “fast”, so it was interesting to read Fletcher’s take on it in terms of fashion’s relationship with the economy: each concept seemed to have an explanation which made me want to believe. I realised how much dependency the currency holds on any large industries, as I have little to no understanding of corporate life as of now. It helped me build my foundation into realising the absolute complexity of this industry and its involvement world-wide.

Continuing when dealing with an industry as unique and as complex as the Fashion Kingdom, one must understand their audience and the path to take to capture their attention. Li Edelkoort did just that. She captured her audience with the talk “Anti-fashion: A Manifesto for the Next Decade”, for a couple of key components along side her life time of experience. Edelkoort spoke with care, opening her heart to her listeners, sharing opinions from experiences, and most importantly stating solutions to problems people are trying to avoid! She is a person, my peers and I refer to as “real”, due to the fact that she is raising questions without the fear lingering inside. I found her tone to be similar to Fletcher’s, as far as my interpretation goes because both women came across as certain and confident. For someone like me, who is for the first time obtaining understanding about this industry, well 1) first I realised that there is a lot more complications in relation to the environment and 2) that its “cash money flow currency” really has transformed the intent behind why people are faced with these issues and quests.