I’m immersed in man vs. machine thinking right now, and couldn’t help but notice the stark philosophical contrast in branding between 2 of the leading smartphones.
In the “go-robots” Kurzweil corner we’ve got Android, glibbly embracing all that is machine about communications technology. One of Android’s original founders, Andy Rubin, spills the semantic-web beans, admitting he planned to develop
…smarter mobile devices that are more aware of its owner’s location and preferences.
This, as we know, is the core of the robot’s plan to keep humanity busy with quicker Starbucks transactions while they quietly take over our planet.
On the other side of the ring is Postman‘s nutritious Apple, with its humanisty Enlightenment connotations. Apple’s flagship product, iPhone, is most pointedly branded to be about people—not just any people, I—and revels in glorious user-centered design. They didn’t call it RobotPhone, kwim?
Get to the goods. Who can outdance whom?
Android’s contribution to the world-domination dance-off:
And busting a move for humanity: MMA lightweight Genki Sudo, who I suspect is the guy in the Android suit anyway.
What do you think? Does a man in an android suit outdance an android in men’s suiting?
Excited! Two new books that ponderthe role of humans in a technological future—or is that technology in humanity’s future?—arrived yesterday.
I opted for paper copies in accordance with my family’s “no iPad in the tub” policy.
Ray Kurzweil, a futurist with 17 honourary doctorates (how does he fit them on his business card?), seems to have invented the concept of technological singularity, so we’ll put him in the “go robots” category, at least until I’ve read him & have a more nuanced grasp of his ideas.
Neil Postman, a media theorist & cultural critic, was recommended to me by a friend as a means of understanding the biases inherent in different technologies. A few pages in, I’m already liking the cultural awareness Postman recommends:
Once a technology is admitted (to our culture), it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is—when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open.
We’ll put Postman in the opposite corner, a damper on our blithe embrace of a mediated environment. At the moment I gravitate towards this side of the octagon, because the pace of technological change has pushed us into new social conventions (Zuckity Zuck Zuck) that were certainly not thoughtfully admitted to our culture, but rather inserted there by commerce.
You can see my toddler is pro-robot,: within 5 minutes of unboxing she’d already torn out the last signature of Technopoly.
Postman’s quote “Children are the living messages we send to a time we will not see” recently went viral, because it’s being misattributed in Google results. So here’s my contribution to setting that straight.
So, part of the idea behind technological #singularity is that it might be possible to build a machine that’s smarter than people. Then all heck breaks loose, and humans do not necessarily come out on top.
“Theoretically, if a machine built by humans could bring to bear greater problem-solving and inventive skills than humans, then it could design a yet more capable machine. If built, this more capable machine then could design a machine of even greater capability.” Machines get smarter and smarter, outpacing humans until they’re the boss of us.
When I posted the video of my 9-month-old tickling Talking Carl on the iPhone, I thought it was a) pretty cute and b) amazing that the touch screen interface seemed usable by someone who can’t read and doesn’t know where reality ends.
Recently I’ve had further evidence that we’re at a turning point in HCI (human computer interaction). The baby came into contact this past week with the digital display on my breast pump (yeah, I said breast pump. Can I be a social media blogger AND a mommy blogger for a minute? Thanks!) and the display on my dSLR.
Both times, she wiggled her finger on the screen. Neither device giggled, but I was stunned that a) she expected she was interacting with a responsive device and b) she thought touching the screen would initiate interaction.
Either my baby is a genius (let’s assume she is), or touch/gesture interaction is the most natural extension of human will manifest. Until we can control devices with our thoughts, touch is a big upgrade.
Ever notice when we, uh, pretend to cast magic spells (totally pretend, of course), that the power of our intent is in our gesture? In our hands? Think Harry Potter’s gesture-based stylus interface.
The carpal-tunnel-inducing secretary-wrist-mangling mouse interface is finally an unnecessary proxy, hooray! Clicking, if you think about it, was the next iteration of inserting punch cards. No wonder our extremities got so tired.
We heard the story this week of the 99-year-old who’s first computer, the touch-based iPad, “opened up the world”. It seems the extremes of age and inexperience alike find the touch screen remarkably intuitive.
It makes sense. In observing the development of a baby, one is struck by the need to touch to understand the world. Grasping and gestures are the natural way one expects, as an unmolded infant, to learn about and control the world.
The upcoming generation are going to be digital natives on a different order of magnitude. May their wrists remain unburdened by silly stop-gap interfaces.
Nice to meet you
Thanks for the comments & the kind words. Best place to get my immediate attention is Twitter, but you could also email me if you absolutely have to.
