I-life and Robots
I think the best part of the Filth was the I-life. “Only humans could make something kinder and better than themselves that makes them smarter than God in my opinion.” I really like this line from Greg that comes in the last few pages. Not even God was willing or able to design a superior creature. The I-life evolves itself so that it may better assist humans. I-life is the ideal nano-bot. Is it possible for us to design something like it? We watched videos in class about robots that teach themselves to walk. It seems that this is the type of programming that I-life uses, where it evolves itself. So can this be considered life? What defines life? Webster’s has several definitions as following: “…characterized by metabolism, growth, and reproduction… Any conscious and intelligent existence. …the period of animate existence from birth until death.” So by these definitions, I-life would meet the qualifications of living, while the walking robots would meet only one (animate existence). How hard would it be to give it the other qualifications? Intelligence is easy, calculators and computers have that. Consciousness would be harder to program into a machine. How will we know when we have given a machine its own consciousness? Will it be through its communication of emotion? Will it be its ability to learn? Will it be through its free will? How much free will does something need to be considered alive? Plants are considered to be alive by most people, yet I have a hard time imagining them as conscious. They do not seem to have much in the way of free will, they just have stimulus-response reactions with their environment. It seems that robots and computers have as much consciousness as plants do. Metabolism, growth, and reproduction are not employed by today’s machines and robots. But machines seem to have a comparable system of energy usage. Machines rely on electricity that comes from power plants, and these serve in place of metabolism. Growth does not occur in machines, but perhaps someday it will. Reproduction happens on a basic level already with robots. In assembly lines in factories, robots are programmed to construct cars and other machinery. This, however is lacking features of animal and plant reproduction, namely the genetic variation. However, it seems possible that in the future robots could be the designers as well as the builders of their offspring. If a programmer adapted the evolution and learning programming into assembly line designer robots, the robots might be able to design better robots than themselves. Someday, perhaps, we may have to compete with robots on the evolutionary food chain, as in the Matrix. However, it would be ideal if we could design robots similar to I-life that have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with humans.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ribofunk, Art, the Other, and the Filth
I think that my favorite story in Ribofunk was the last one, Distributed Mind. I was intrigued by the Urb, and especially how it chose to re-create everything it had consumed. A fellow blogger noted that this is much like many people’s concept of God. I would have to agree. It seems that the Urb is similar to the Christian idea of God. The Urb is omniscient, and even seems to have a sense of justice by letting the humans continue to “live.” Art, humanness, the Other… I mentioned graffiti artists in my last blog. In Radical Alterity, graffiti artists are used as examples of humans displaying the Other. It is their inner emotions, thoughts, and feelings that they let out in anonymity. They choose to do so through art. But what is art? How do we define the limits of art? From my understanding, art is leisure, it is a practice we indulge ourselves with to expand our happiness and creativity. We make art when all of our needs of survival are met, and we have extra time to deepen ourselves on the spiritual level. We share our art with others so that they may contemplate our work, looking to find the feelings hidden in the work. Common ideas of art are paintings, sculptures, poetry, music, and literature. But isn’t food also an art? Is art something that one creates? Is this guy creating art?
The photography here is most definitely art. Even without the kayaker, this would make a great photo. The contrast of the natural power with the serene beauty that surrounds it is intriguing. The kayaker makes the shot even better. But why? Why does the viewer want to see someone put their life and limbs at risk? Do we want to associate with his emotions? Isn’t that what art is all about – emotion? Does the kayaker create his own personal art found in the emotions he creates by his own actions?
He isn’t making art in the traditional sense, but this obviously gives him a feeling not found in day-to-day activities. This feeling pleasures him so much that he will put his survival at risk to obtain it. What feeling drives this madman? Is this a way for him to release the Other? To an outsider this idea seems absurd. There is nothing remotely logical in strapping oneself into a little plastic boat and launching face first off of a waterfall. But this guy must provide himself some reason, at least enough reason to fall off of waterfalls on a regular basis. Is this a way for him to release the Other? Is this man’s Id, his inner drive, compelling him to unnaturally expose himself to danger?
Is art what makes us human? Or is it that we possess the Other (or does it possess us)? Animals do not create art. Perhaps they don’t need to. An animal may not have the Other; perhaps they are one and the same. Is this what separates man from beasts? Is this necessarily a good thing? I’m beginning to feel that art is a creation of the Other. Art is the Other. Artists= Others, hence some seem a little weird to society, they may be alienated. So to make one’s life a work of art is to make one’s life a work of the Other.
Again, is this a good idea? We’ve seen so far that we can get an insight to the Other through anonymity and art. What do we find when we look into this? We find The Ticket, YouTube, we find people kayaking off of waterfalls. We also find beauty, creation, music, compassion, and religion. Do the positive creations outweigh the filth? Is the good better than the bad? Hard to say. Is anyone really ready to let themselves loose? No. So, we control. We compose rules for ourselves, we create a “please and thank you” society of ants where everyone is subjected to the judgment of society. The “normal” obedient ones pass the test and fit into society like a jigsaw puzzle. The deviants, the Others, the “artists” are outcasts, 3D pieces in the two dimensional societal puzzle.
This connects to the first section of The Filth, where the obedient yet unhappy flat puzzle piece Greg is slapped into the third dimension as Officer Slade. This new world he is in seems vulgar, disorganized, and perhaps even artistic. Does Greg (as Slade) venture into the land of the Other? It seems this land is somewhat of a shitshow. Lots going on, slight chaos and confusion. If this world is “the land of the Other”, with spider brain robots and Nazi mechanical dolphins, I don’t think I’m ready for it. I think I’ll choose as Greg did, and stick to my puzzle piece conformity for now. I wouldn’t want my seat here to get cold.
The photography here is most definitely art. Even without the kayaker, this would make a great photo. The contrast of the natural power with the serene beauty that surrounds it is intriguing. The kayaker makes the shot even better. But why? Why does the viewer want to see someone put their life and limbs at risk? Do we want to associate with his emotions? Isn’t that what art is all about – emotion? Does the kayaker create his own personal art found in the emotions he creates by his own actions?
He isn’t making art in the traditional sense, but this obviously gives him a feeling not found in day-to-day activities. This feeling pleasures him so much that he will put his survival at risk to obtain it. What feeling drives this madman? Is this a way for him to release the Other? To an outsider this idea seems absurd. There is nothing remotely logical in strapping oneself into a little plastic boat and launching face first off of a waterfall. But this guy must provide himself some reason, at least enough reason to fall off of waterfalls on a regular basis. Is this a way for him to release the Other? Is this man’s Id, his inner drive, compelling him to unnaturally expose himself to danger?
Is art what makes us human? Or is it that we possess the Other (or does it possess us)? Animals do not create art. Perhaps they don’t need to. An animal may not have the Other; perhaps they are one and the same. Is this what separates man from beasts? Is this necessarily a good thing? I’m beginning to feel that art is a creation of the Other. Art is the Other. Artists= Others, hence some seem a little weird to society, they may be alienated. So to make one’s life a work of art is to make one’s life a work of the Other.
Again, is this a good idea? We’ve seen so far that we can get an insight to the Other through anonymity and art. What do we find when we look into this? We find The Ticket, YouTube, we find people kayaking off of waterfalls. We also find beauty, creation, music, compassion, and religion. Do the positive creations outweigh the filth? Is the good better than the bad? Hard to say. Is anyone really ready to let themselves loose? No. So, we control. We compose rules for ourselves, we create a “please and thank you” society of ants where everyone is subjected to the judgment of society. The “normal” obedient ones pass the test and fit into society like a jigsaw puzzle. The deviants, the Others, the “artists” are outcasts, 3D pieces in the two dimensional societal puzzle.
This connects to the first section of The Filth, where the obedient yet unhappy flat puzzle piece Greg is slapped into the third dimension as Officer Slade. This new world he is in seems vulgar, disorganized, and perhaps even artistic. Does Greg (as Slade) venture into the land of the Other? It seems this land is somewhat of a shitshow. Lots going on, slight chaos and confusion. If this world is “the land of the Other”, with spider brain robots and Nazi mechanical dolphins, I don’t think I’m ready for it. I think I’ll choose as Greg did, and stick to my puzzle piece conformity for now. I wouldn’t want my seat here to get cold.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Photosynth
That Photosynth thing blew my mind. Wow. Putting all of the ethical objections aside, that is one incredible program. I gather that people can just upload photos that they or anyone else has taken, then they synth them with the program to create a 3D representation of the picture subjects. So, what could happen when people upload all of the photos in the entire world to this Photosynth? Could we create a representation of the entire world through this? What are the implications of that? I’m envisioning something like the Invention of Morel in this photosynth program. It does not have the capability to produce the things it photographs, but this seems like the best first step towards that goal.
Photosynth seems like it would tie into Google earth really well. Check out the Google Earth (GE) blog discussing Photosynth. If GE was combined with Photosynth, they could create an entire representation of the world in detail. Google Earth already allows users of Picasa, Google’s photo program, to geotag their photos and have them show up on the map.
Now, what is the potential of this technology, where could this lead? Now that people can upload photos and organize them into three dimensional models, what is the next step? Where would Burroughs take this?
What if we could upload videos instead of just still photos? Let’s imagine that we could create one storage site for all of the photos in Photosynth. Let’s go even further and say that this storage space is Google Earth. Then, how about we install webcams everywhere, street corners and such, and we program these webcams to instantly update their most recent shots to Photosynth. With this, a 1984-esque system of constant surveillance could be created. Is this where we want our technology to lead? 1984 tells us how such a system can be used to manipulate and control the people. I find this new technology to have potentially scary implications.
So, intrigued by this photosynth program, I decided to try the program out for myself. I downloaded it (free!) and synthed a few photos that I had from a snow caving trip this last weekend. I expected Photosynth to create a virtual representation of the snow cave. In the tutorial video, it says to choose objects that have strong color variations, i.e.: not the dull white walls of our snow cave. The program, unable to synth the white walls of the cave, chose instead to match my roommate’s face. What happened is that I took three pictures in a row, and he held a similar expression in the three shots, even though those around him had moved. This ability to recognize faces makes me think that our Britney Spears idea is entirely possible as the program is now. In class as we discussed it, I imagined that this program is not advanced enough to do such a task. Now I realize how close it really is. Is the world really ready for public facial recognition software? The guy in the demo had used Photosynth to search flicker for photos of Notre Dame. What if someone decided to search for a particular face? This is like FBI technology available on the internet in a free ten minute download. Frightening thought. Imagine a hacker with this program and a powerful computer. They could hack into surveillance cameras and have the program search for a face. In theory, they could locate someone as their face passed across a screen in a shopping mall. The privacy violations made possible by this program are nearly endless.
Photosynth seems like it would tie into Google earth really well. Check out the Google Earth (GE) blog discussing Photosynth.
Now, what is the potential of this technology, where could this lead? Now that people can upload photos and organize them into three dimensional models, what is the next step? Where would Burroughs take this?
What if we could upload videos instead of just still photos? Let’s imagine that we could create one storage site for all of the photos in Photosynth. Let’s go even further and say that this storage space is Google Earth. Then, how about we install webcams everywhere, street corners and such, and we program these webcams to instantly update their most recent shots to Photosynth. With this, a 1984-esque system of constant surveillance could be created. Is this where we want our technology to lead? 1984 tells us how such a system can be used to manipulate and control the people. I find this new technology to have potentially scary implications.
So, intrigued by this photosynth program, I decided to try the program out for myself. I downloaded it (free!) and synthed a few photos that I had from a snow caving trip this last weekend. I expected Photosynth to create a virtual representation of the snow cave. In the tutorial video, it says to choose objects that have strong color variations, i.e.: not the dull white walls of our snow cave. The program, unable to synth the white walls of the cave, chose instead to match my roommate’s face. What happened is that I took three pictures in a row, and he held a similar expression in the three shots, even though those around him had moved. This ability to recognize faces makes me think that our Britney Spears idea is entirely possible as the program is now. In class as we discussed it, I imagined that this program is not advanced enough to do such a task. Now I realize how close it really is. Is the world really ready for public facial recognition software? The guy in the demo had used Photosynth to search flicker for photos of Notre Dame. What if someone decided to search for a particular face? This is like FBI technology available on the internet in a free ten minute download. Frightening thought. Imagine a hacker with this program and a powerful computer. They could hack into surveillance cameras and have the program search for a face. In theory, they could locate someone as their face passed across a screen in a shopping mall. The privacy violations made possible by this program are nearly endless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
