Dana Sy-Ching | BBMS

In the morning, I was able to catch the latter part of Jeric Bautista’s talk about re3D. He spoke about 3d printing by using used plastics or by reusing old 3D prints. I thought this was really interesting especially in the context of climate change and plastic waste. The talks that followed also made me realize the potential for change open-source hardware can bring. The process of reusing plastic for 3D print reminded me of the process people use to reuse silicone (which I had looked up in the past because I wanted to learn about molding but was worrying about waste — which has been a significant problem in prototyping). With hardware being open source, it could be possible to broaden the reach of hardware that will provide us with access to technology that allows us to engage in better sustainability practices.

From this, and the talk that followed by Sean Montgomery, we see that there are potential hitches that are likely to arise alongside open-source hardware such as cost, data ownership, trust, and confidentiality. These, apart from cost are also likely hitches open-source software had to encounter (which the talk that follows discusses). I enjoyed Sean Montgomery’s talk A LOT especially since he has a neuroscience background which is something I am really interested in (and in the manner in which technology could broaden the field). He demonstrated a device called emotibit and its implications on ‘affective computing’ which allows for an emotional approach instead of the usual pure logic in computing. (It’s interesting too coz for a future project concept from another class, I was thinking of the existence of a similar device/sensor).

With this, I realized that open source hardware can allow for the emergence of physical computing in other fields. The expansion of open-source hardware will allow individuals to creatively develop. I only recently realized within the course of this and the next talk how different this is from open-source software. I have always been fascinated by hardware but had trouble getting started on my own. There aren’t a lot of means for people to learn to use hardware for their respective interests and those who do so more natively (like electrical engineers) are often only able to apply it to their field which limits the potential of physical computing. Open-source hardware could foster growth in creative applications but it could also do the same to other sciences and open up other forms of exploration; which is a thrilling concept to ponder about.

Another talk I wanted to hear was Patricia Alves Oliveira’s which is about YOLO – your own living object, which is a social object for creativity. It seemed to be an extremely adaptive device that responds to children’s modes of play. I thought this was an interesting concept because it was an object that could be likened to pets or conversations, but without the animals or people and with an adaptive intent to ignite creativity. This is a level of interactivity that does not just communicate a response but is affected by and affects the behavior of that who interacts with it. She talks about how they made detailed instructions for the kit used to make this robot but also addresses how there are learning curves to be encountered and technical guidance that may be needed. The pattern of complexity arises once more which makes me wonder about the possible existence of tools and objects that on their own, are able to respond in such a way that they are able to guide the user to learn about hardware. 

There are other talks I wanna listen to but will have to get back to once they are uploaded but overall, from the talks I’ve heard thus far, I’ve realized the potential of open hardware as a way of advancing ideas into matters that have not been explored before. It has always been nice to think about how integrating creativity, technology, and sustainability might change fields of study. Open-source hardware definitely seems to be one of the few things that could catalyze these changes and advancements.