Month: September 2022

I

Who were/are these people, and did/does each contribute to the development of artificial intelligence? How did/does each think “intelligence” could be defined?

Alan Mathison Turing (1912-1954) – Mathematician / Computer Scientist / Cryptanalyst

Turing questioned “can machines think?” (Turing, p. 433, 1950) using a hypothetical game where one of three participants – two human, one machine – analyzes textual communication to determine the identities of the others (Turing, p. 433, 1950), gaining short-hand status in the domain of AI as the Turing Test. Passing refers to whether a machine’s output reads as human. Turing represents an early advocate for knowledge acquisition’s essentiality to machine intelligence (Chollet, 2019, p. 6).

John McCarthy (1927-2011) – Computer Scientist

McCarthy is Co-credited with coining the term artificial intelligence in a proposal for the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, initiating artificial intelligence (AI) as a field of study. McCarthy is additionally known for seminal contributions to early networking systems, functionality necessary for the internet to exist (Woo, 2014). Generality permeated his perspective of AI, meaning that intelligence exhibited adaptability and flexibility in novel situations. (Chollet, 2019, pp. 5, 6, 9).

Herbert Simon (1916-2001) – Political Scientist / Social Scientist

Engaged in computer science, economics, and psychology, Simon co-created the first artificially intelligent computer program, the Logic Theorist, a program able to solve complex logic problems (Gugerty, 2006, p. 880). Simon researched decision making and believed that to effectively problem solve, one must first collect and analyze relevant data to full understanding – to Simon, intelligence advances as each experience or decision point informs future action, not unlike learning (The Decision Lab).

Marvin Minsky (1927-2016) – Computer Scientist / Cognitive Scientist

Co-credited with coining the term artificial intelligence (AI), Minsky founded the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. He authored philosophical texts that explore the nature of human intelligence in relation to AI (Rifkin, 2016), yet his perspective of intelligence in AI is retrospectively limited, reflective of collective logical tasks (Chollet, 2019, p. 5). Minsky’s expertise informed Hal 9000 in Kubrick’s’ 2001 A Space Odyssey (Stork, 1997).

Timnit Gebru (1982) – Computer Scientist

Gebru published evidence of racial and gender bias within AI. She recognizes that data and programing are imbued with developer and societal bias: AI is not objective. (Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018). Gebru gained public recognition when fired from Google for identifying risks with AI training of “large language models,” (Hao, 2020) highlighting concerns associated with AI development being exploited by massive companies in positions of wealth and power.

II

How do “machine (programming) languages” differ from human (natural) ones?

Harris (2018) describes programming languages as “logical, precise, perfectly unambiguous”: codes designed by humans to perform specific operations where each phrase represents a particular command. The languages of human-to-human communication (speech, written, body language, etc.) are saturated with nuance, context, history, and shared cultural perspectives. They are not only “imperfect” as Harris describes, but their fluctuating and implicit nature is essential to their definition. Jones (2020) describes the study of pragmatics in linguistics as “being concern[ed] with how people communicate and discern intentions below the level of explicit meaning” (pp. 24-25). Although programming languages are inherently explicit, Jones (2020) explains (or perhaps warns) that via algorithmic pragmatics, algorithms gather extensive data of human behaviour, and use it to uncover implicit information, even beyond what is communicated through natural language (pp. 29-32).

III

How does “machine (artificial) intelligence” differ from the human version?

Chollet (2019) argues that part of the struggle to develop sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) is reflective of the challenge of defining what exactly intelligence is, and without a clear definition AI technology has failed to compare to human intelligence. Advanced AI excels at specifically programmed task-based functionality, at times performing far beyond human ability, but this functionality lacks generalization, “the ability to handle situations (or tasks) that differ from previously encountered situations” (Chollet, 2019, pp. 9-10). In contrast, human intelligence is highly generalized in that we are constantly facing new experiences and using prior knowledge to determine and adapt our behaviour accordingly. Generality is essential to human nature and is an aspect that developers are only beginning to program in comparatively rudimentary ways in contemporary AI. 

IV

How does “machine learning” differ from human learning?

When compared to machine learning, human learning is slow, it comes from everywhere: intentional education, reading, passive observation, interactions, perpetual multifaceted lived experiences. As we encounter life, we build our own subjectivity shaped by the cultures we associate with; each new experience is weighed against our prior knowledge, reflected on, synthesized, and integrated in accordance with our worldview. Machine learning consists of gathering massive amounts of data to systematically analyze it to discover patterns, to then use that information as per programmed metrics (Heilweil, 2020). This data is not representative of one individual’s complex yet cohesive lived experience, it represents the fragmented digital output of millions. Human learning is closely attached to emotional experience, machine learning is emotionally vacant, yet the data it gleans is embedded with infinite emotion (infinite bias) that the machine cannot be programmed to accurately decipher.

V

How do YOUR answers to these questions differ from what a machine could generate?

It took several iterations to write the short biographies in question one. On the first attempt, I reviewed many web-based articles to gather a sense of the individuals. I spent hours wordsmithing to cleverly shorten my responses, only to realize I failed to provide any insight to their perspectives on intelligence. I had skimmed Chollet’s (2019) article enough to know that within was information about intelligence yet had not read it thoroughly enough to achieve comprehension. I read it in depth and re-worked each biography with a new understanding of task-based vs generalized intelligence.

Writing is difficult for me. Also, and perhaps more importantly, thinking about what to write is difficult for me and is often a laborious process. To feel confident in my writing, I must read everything available, think about it extensively, talk about it to those who might engage (e.g., pragmatics with a friend who studied linguistics, algorithmic bias with an archivist friend).

Additionally, part of my personal synthesis is looking for connections. Although not explicitly stated, I always consider Vygotsky’s concept of sociocultural theory when I think of humans learning; I thought of how Jones (2020) implied ideas of actor-network theory and noted that he cited Latour – and from my prior learning, I know why Vygotsky and Latour are relevant.

I print out my texts, I make marginalia!

I like to think that this work was produced idiosyncratically and that an AI generated version of these responses would be too uncanny valley to mistake as human made. 

References

Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018, January). Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 77-91). PMLR.

Chollet, F. (2019). On the measure of intelligence. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.01547.pdf

Gugerty, L. (2006). Newell and Simon’s Logic Theorist: Historical Background and Impact on Cognitive Modeling. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 880–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605000904

Hao, K. (2020, December 4). We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru

Harris, A. (2018, October, 31). Human languages vs. programming languages. Medium. https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-languages-vs-programming-languages-c89410f13252

Heilweil, R. (2020, February 18). Why algorithms can be racist and sexist. A computer can make a decision faster. That doesn’t make it fair. Vox. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognition-transparency

Jones, R. (2020). The rise of the Pragmatic Web: Implications for rethinking meaning and interaction. In C. Tagg & Evans M. (Eds.), Message and medium: English language practices across old and new media (pp. 17-37). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110670837

Rifkin, G. (2016, January 25). Marvin Minsky, pioneer in artificial intelligence, dies at 88. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/marvin-minsky-pioneer-in-artificial-intelligence-dies-at-88.html

Stork, D. (Ed.). (1997). HAL’s Legacy: 2001’s Computer as Dream and Reality. MIT Press.

The Decision Lab. (n.d.). Thinker: Herbert Simon. The Decision Lab. https://thedecisionlab.com/thinkers/computer-science/herbert-simon

Turing, A. (1950). Computing, machinery and intelligence. Mind, 49(236), 433-460. https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

Woo, E. (2014, March 20). John McCarthy dies at 84; the father of artificial intelligence. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-john-mccarthy-20111027-story.html

I

As someone with a background in arts and design, Issa and Isaias’ (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction, reads as a ploy to convince future programmers that good design is just as important as technical functionality. It can be difficult to comprehend why an unusable product would prevail – but considering my own experience in various workplaces, it is often about cost: what product can we afford? What customizations can we afford to make this system meet our needs? The familiar circumstance of mismatched tool to user needs stands in stark contrast to Papert’s (2020) notion that “…computer presence could contribute to mental processes not only instrumentally but in more essential conceptual ways, influencing how people think even when they are far removed from physical contact with a computer…” (p. 2). Papert conceived digital systems as not only intuitive, but also working to teach us complex ideas, and transform the ways we perceive and interact with our world. This is good design; of which, usability is an essential component.

Issa and Isaias’ (2015) criteria of usability (p. 33) led me to consider tangible aspects of usability: It allows new users to learn through active exploration when guidance is built into the system interface. It is present in systems that are respondent to different approaches, allowing users to reach the same conclusion through various pathways. Usability means the system anticipates potential user error and is comprised of protections to prevent these inevitabilities or support the user when they occur. It utilizes the interface to display streamlined processes, and it integrates modern aesthetics in ways that reinforce functionality. Additionally, Issa and Isaias (2015) highlight two “critical dimensions” (p. 21) of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) that assist designers in maximizing usability, first, that the user be involved as a key aspect of the creation, and second, that aspects of human behavior and psychology are considered in the design process (p. 21).

II

Missing from this model of usability, is the technologically cultural perspective. Designers must also consider: what might users anticipate in direct reflection of their collective technological experiences? What are they accustomed to, and what innovations will build on their expectations? Technology evolves in response to what came before – what signs and symbols will be utilized to embed familiarity, and activate users’ prior knowledge? A system that is considerate of the user’s world affords them the basic level of comfort and ease required to proceed with the effective learning of a new complex tool. This fundamental principle also applies to educational systems and supports usability from an educational standpoint. Papert (2020) suggests a similar sentiment:

It is about whether personal computers and the cultures in which they are used will continue to be the creatures of “engineers” alone or whether we can construct intellectual environments in which people who today think of themselves as “humanists” will feel part of, not alienated from, the process of constructing computational cultures (p. 3).

III

Papert shares an idealized symbiotic future, whereas Woolgar (1990) exhibits a critical view of the reciprocal relationship between human and technology. In Configuring the User, Woolgar (1990) addresses the agency of inanimate objects, specifically a computer’s ability to shape its users. Woolgar explains that the computer manual itself serves as instructions for constructing the user. The manual “defines the correct courses of interpretation and action to be followed” (p. 81) by the user – essentially, configuring a user that acts in ways best-suited for the computer’s benefit. He asserts the physicality of the computer – a clean case with complex technical components hidden inside – is designed as a user restraint, “Insiders know the machine, whereas users have a configured relationship to it, such that only certain forms of access/use are encouraged” (p. 89). Viewing the object as imbued with the intentions of its designers, activates it, and reminds us to be analytical of our relationships with our things as they are not neutral parties.

IV

The general nature of Issa and Isaias’ approach to the HCI and usability design process is practical and assumes designers are working in ideal circumstances where the needs of users are addressed in the “usability evaluation stage” (2015, p. 29). Woolgar on the other hand, perceives the “design and production” (1990, p. 59) of a system as the process of building constraints to police users’ interactions. Perhaps each perspective has validity: We can acknowledge Woolgar’s critical view but look to Papert to find beneficial ways to build our unavoidable relationship with technology, while also applying the pragmatic tools provided by Issa & Isaias.

References

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer, London.

Papert, S. (2020). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In The Sociological Review, 38(1_Suppl), 58-99.

1. Briefly explain why you selected this as ‘raw material’ to search for how Indigeneity and Indigenous people are represented in texts that make up our knowledge about and understanding of the history of education in the locale you chose. Explain how this text might have impacted either educational history or Teacher Professional Development.

Although I currently work as an in-house educator within a provincial government organization, my undergrad degree is a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Emily Carr University, and my interest in education stems from a special topic course I took that focused on art and education. The class was about significant schools in modern art education, such as the Bauhaus and Black Mountain College, but also works of art and specific artists that concentrated on pedagogical themes or even pedagogy as a medium. From this course, and through anecdotal bits and pieces picked up throughout my time at Emily Carr, I gathered that the Vancouver art scene in the 1960s was an exciting and experimental time; and, that many of the key artists were associated with two (somewhat in competition) schools: The Vancouver School of Art (now known as Emily Carr University) and the University of British Columbia.

In a search for documents about this time in Vancouver and British Columbia’s art history, I came across this text by Marian Penner Bancroft (2009) on the archival website Vancouver Art in the Sixties titled, UBC in the Sixties: A Conversation with Audrey Capel Doray, Gathie Falk, Donald Gutstein, Karen Jamieson, Glenn Lewis, Jamie Reid and Abraham Rogatnick. As the title suggests, the text captures an informal conversation, and is perhaps a transcript of an audio recording.

I was curious as to whether the conversation discussed or referenced Northwest Coast Indigenous art works, artists, or their cultural influence as my understanding of how this art was perceived and recognized at this specific time is limited. It’s important to note, that the Vancouver Art in the Sixties site exhibits another essay by Marcia Crosby (2009) titled Making Indian Art “Modern”, that is specifically about Indigenous art in Vancouver in the 60s, but my interest was in gauging the prevalence of Indigenous art and culture by reviewing a casual (albeit lengthy) conversation about the general scene at that time.

2. Identify a specific question you want to answer by selecting and searching this text. What is your search intended (or hoping) to illuminate?  

As stated, my understanding of Indigenous art in Vancouver during the 60s is limited – but I remember learning there was a push for Indigenous art to be seen as contemporary art as opposed to artifact and I hoped that a shift in the perception of Indigenous art would be reflected in the conversation. As the 60s was a time of political and cultural revolution, I also thought there may be reference to influence or inspiration from the many Indigenous cultures that exist on the unceded land where British Columbia is located.

3. Identify and explain the search terms you will use.  

See below for the terms searched and the resulting hits:

• Indian – 1

“I also remember a West Indian steel drum band coming — do you remember that?” (Bancroft, p. 6, 2009).

• Indigenous – 2

“Two people that I wanted to mention in this context are Al Neil and bill bissett because there was this indigenous art movement — I call it indigenous because it was the people here who were doing it. It was of course influenced by all the trends from outside, but the art that came out of Vancouver and the West Coast has its own distinctive character” (Bancroft, p. 36, 2009).

• Aboriginal – 0
• First Nations – 0
• Native – 0

I decided to add two more terms to broaden my search. As there was much discussion of people from various places across North America, I included Métis, and because Inuit printmaking (particularly from Cape Dorset) was prevalent in the 1960s onward, I included Inuit.

• Métis – 0
• Inuit – 0

4. Create a new question, and any additional search term/terms you think might be illuminating.

A major theme of this text is who’s who and from where: who was active at this time, and where did they come from or who they were connected to (such as other well-known artists, collectives or schools). There are mentions of connections to the Bauhaus and Black Mountain College, ties to other parts of eastern Canada, but the conversation largely focuses on ties to the Unites States (“America”) and specifically the West Coast (San Francisco). So, with no mention of the Indigenous art and culture of the region, what other places/cultures were most topical in this conversation?

• Vancouver – 36
• America – 27
• Canad* – 24
• New York – 12
• San Francisco – 10
• Toronto – 9
• West Coast – 4
• England – 4
• Orient/oriental – 4
• Venice – 3
• German* – 2
• Zen – 2
• Paris – 2
• Japan – 1

5. Search and document what you find.

See above.

6. Report the results (and limitations) of your search and your analysis of those results. 

The retrospective conversational text of these artists does not make any direct reference to Indigenous art or culture in 1960s Vancouver. I searched the terms, Indian; Indigenous; Aboriginal; First Nations; and Native and added in Métis; and Inuit to broaden the search, but even with limited (yet irrelevant) hits, the results were negative. I also read the whole text and other than what is mentioned below, no additional contextual references to British Columbia’s Indigenous art and culture were apparent.

The term “Indian” has 1 result but references “a West Indian steel drum band,” (Bancroft, p. 6, 2009). otherwise known as the West Indies, not peoples indigenous to British Columbia. The term “Indigenous” has 2 results but at a closer look, does not appear to refer to indigeneity in the context sought:

“Two people that I wanted to mention in this context are Al Neil and bill bissett because there was this indigenous art movement — I call it indigenous because it was the people here who were doing it. It was of course influenced by all the trends from outside, but the art that came out of Vancouver and the West Coast has its own distinctive character.”

My rapid internet searching concluded that Vancouver-based poet, bill bissett (bill bissett, 2009) is not himself Indigenous, though perhaps inspired by Indigenous culture and aesthetics, and Al Neil (Al Neil, 2009), while apparently born in Vancouver, also does not appear to be genealogically connected to any Indigenous peoples of the Northwest. Unless my hurried research is incorrect, in this instance, and at the time of this text (2009) the term ‘indigenous’ is used in a troublesome way and could have been avoided.

It’s unfortunate that throughout the conversation there was no direct reference to indigenous culture in Vancouver in the 60s, but it isn’t surprising. This text read about a time when Vancouver was positioning itself within the global art world – connecting itself to major players: The Bauhaus, Black Mountain College, Andy Warhol, R. Buckminster Fuller, Merce Cunningham, Robert Rauschenberg – just some of the largely famous names dropped, names that are prevalent in art and cultural history courses throughout the world. Perhaps in the 1960s, Vancouver was focused on becoming its own distinct entity, explicitly separate and unique from domineering America, but in it an attempt to be noticed for something new, failed to fully acknowledge and embrace crucial parts of itself.

References

Al Neil. (2009, January 2). Vancouver Art in the Sixties. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from https://alneil.vancouverartinthesixties.com/

Bancroft, M. (2009). UBC in the Sixties: A conversation with Audrey Capel Doray, Gathie Falk, Donald Gustein, Karen Jamieson, Glenn Lewis, Jamie Reid, and Abraham Rogatnick. Ruins in Process: Vancouver Art in the Sixties.

Bill Bissett. (2009, June 1). Vancouver Art in the Sixties. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from http://vancouverartinthesixties.com/people/13

Crosby, M. (2009). Making Indian Art ‘Modern’. Ruins in Process: Vancouver Art in the Sixties.