Re: [-empyre-] Introducing Machine Dreams Contributors: Ana Monroe and Jenny Rhee!
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Hi All - @Margaret - thanks for this additional prompt...I'm finding this conversation and process extremely intellectually exercising. Please find below my reply. There's a lot in there. These are high level, unpolished thoughts. I would love to hear replies or generation from them. Let me know. @Jenny - You're correct: so much of the work of Industrial Designers focuses on how people humanize objects, so that is the angle from which I speak. As an example, look at any car you can see on the street as you're outside today: the front and the back are designed in "faces". The lights are the eyes; the bit surrounding the lights are the eyelids...the grill is the nose...the bumper is the mouth - that's intentional. Designers try to design things to look like humans because humans like to see humans. It makes people say "hey- that looks friendly/fierce/fast/fun"; they assign human attributes to the products. It's a strategy for creating emotional connections between people and product. I agree - we have much in congruence between our work! So interesting... In answer to Margaret's question regarding design - labor -fiction, I wrote from the assumption that labor and technology grow ever closer together. In addition to its historic use in automating labor, current technology also makes the sourcing of human labor increasingly rapid as well as creating new sectors of labor (AI systems, other artificial, semi-sentient beings). I chose to confront these phenomena through fictive narrative because the multi-stranded nature of the narrative format allows me to explore the interplay of these trends in a way that logical, linear, academic analysis could not. As Jenny points out, for me, the Big Dog project and ones similar to it bring to the fore the moral and ethical questions surrounding the treatment and application of these beings. In my work, the personal assistants (PAs), Howie, belonging to Freddie, and the unnamed Hex, owned by Rachel, are the machines through which this new type of labor and the relationships therein play out. In my piece, I discuss the labor-technology interplay at a couple of points. It didn't appear in the excerpts, but both Rachel and Freddie are the type of tenuous, freelance labor that we see disrupting traditional labor markets currently. Although not seeking to pass judgement on the "agile" labor market of freelancers, it was important to me to call out in the narrative the dishumanity of this model, insomuch that neither Rachel nor Freddie have any direct contact with their employer or each other aside from their trip to Darling. There are no relationships there, only the transaction of labor-for-money. Reaching past human-human relationships and into the human-robot relationship, Freddie and Rachel interact with their semi-sentient PAs in the classic ownership paradigm. Essentially, they treat their PAs in the same way the fictitious Chevy Silverado driver in my previous post treats the truck: as possessions to be used according to the owner's wants. However, I conclude that this paradigm of ownership is inadequate. The semi-sentience of the PAs (or Big Dog) combined with the human attributes assigned to them by the humans surrounding them mean that a the possession paradigm breaks down. How does a human "owner" of a semi-sentient intelligent being behave towards that's being? Because Howie, the Hex, and Big Dog are no longer products like a Chevy Silverado, even though, as discussed Jenny's piece, non-sentient beings such as Silverados can and do carry emotional, human weight for humans. Nor are they a horse, a mule, or a dog. They're something new entirely. This new actor in the labor market requires the creation of a unique, unexplored robot-human-labor paradigm that is extends the classical human-animal-civilization complex to encompass beings who, though technically exist to serve humans, possess some animal attributes, like the ability to produce and store emotions like pain and pleasure but do not have other animal attributes (at least in the present trajectory of AI), such as those abilities to age or reproduce. A On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:25 PM, J. Rhee wrote: > Ana and Margaret, thank you for your thoughtful musings! Ana, I love how > you described your goal for your story as focused on relations (between > humans, between humans and machines, etc.). That resonates with how you > read Margaret’s wonderful poem, as well as Big Dog and the Chevy Silverado. > I also was struck by the presence of “nature" in your story and its complex > relation to both the ReelCover technology and the characters, whose > attention the aloe plant, cicadas, the wind, the “tomato and > persimmon”-colored night, the trees and the fog, seems very intentional. > > I’m also concerned with relationality, including those uncovered by, as > you mention, examining objects’ discreet histories. I’m quite fascinated by > our different di
Re: [-empyre-] Introducing Machine Dreams Contributors: Ana Monroe and Jenny Rhee!
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Ana and Margaret, thank you for your thoughtful musings! Ana, I love how you described your goal for your story as focused on relations (between humans, between humans and machines, etc.). That resonates with how you read Margaret’s wonderful poem, as well as Big Dog and the Chevy Silverado. I also was struck by the presence of “nature" in your story and its complex relation to both the ReelCover technology and the characters, whose attention the aloe plant, cicadas, the wind, the “tomato and persimmon”-colored night, the trees and the fog, seems very intentional. I’m also concerned with relationality, including those uncovered by, as you mention, examining objects’ discreet histories. I’m quite fascinated by our different disciplinary perspectives. If I understand you correctly Ana, your work as an industrial designer points you to how humans humanize objects. As a literary scholar who took a deep dive into robots in technology and culture (and this is in response to Margaret’s question), my work on robots ended up highlighting how humans dehumanize humans. I think these may be two sides of the same coin! In my book, I argue that anthropomorphic paradigms that centrally organize AI and robotics research in conversation with forms of devalued labor. So for example I examine disembodied conversational machine intelligence and its entanglement with care labor, embodied robotics and domestic labor, and emotional robotics and emotional labor, and armed military drones as the labor of racial dehumanization. So for me, labor is central to thinking the robot. Big Dog is an interesting case, because unlike most of the robots I discuss, which are explicitly modeled on the human (or rather, a specific conception of the human), Big Dog is modeled on an animal. So I think it tells us different things about how we labor and who we dehumanize. As Ana mentioned, humans’ treatment of robots like Big Dog speak to dominance, kindness, and cruelty. I think Big Dog’s designed functions for the military (carrying large loads, regaining its balance on uneven terrain) also speak to how this work is valued. Which human occupations and practices are targeted for automation, which are not, and what does that say about how society values this work and those who perform it. Often, occupations that are automated are often significantly held by women and racial-ethnic minorities. An interesting, and slightly unrelated addendum to Big Dog. Apparently, the U.S. military has lost interest in the robot because it’s too loud, and thus could be a strategic liability in the field. Jennifer Rhee Assistant Professor Department of English Media, Art, & Text Ph.D. Program Virginia Commonwealth University > On May 30, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Margaret J Rhee wrote: > > Hi Jenny and Ana! > > Many thanks for your responses, and your contributions to the Zine! It is so > generative to think of your two pieces in conversation with one another, and > while I would not have immediately thought, it really bears interesting > questions of labor, aesthetics, and practice. I wanted to go back to Jenny's > point about robots and labor, and I wondered if you both could speak to some > of the ways the traditions of labor, such as literary scholar, and as > industrial designer, and delving into robotics, and in Ana's case, into > fiction to render these ideas possible. Moreover, how does labor run through > the subject of your pieces as well, I immediately think of Big Dog, and the > transgressions of robotic art. > > best, > > Margaret > > On 2017-05-29 10:51, Ana Monroe wrote: >> Hi All! >> Thanks again for including me in this exciting discussion. I apologize >> for my delay in reply; this discussion week caught me in the beaches, >> boulder fields, and bogs of Iceland, where I was participating in an >> annual feminist engagement with a small group of long time friends and >> collaborators. Needless to say, while this this environment was >> stimulating, exciting, and fascinating (we talked a lot about Earth >> Sciences), it was not conducive to replying to emails in a timely >> manner. >> I've often reflected on the humanization that people foist onto robots >> and machine aids. I found this resonant with both Jenny's work, Petit >> Mal, as well as in Margaret's work, Algorithm Beam. In the latter, I >> found myself in the position of the poet. When reading, I see my >> child, my program, in the work. I lovingly write the little, >> proscribed language that, when read in sequence, can deliver to me a >> great delight: a red light, just as I told her to do! A command >> fulfilled; I am satisfied. She's so filial, my child. But in the >> moment following the moment of triumph, I find myself disappointed as >> well: a daughter who only does what I say? That is so lonely, so >> narcissistic, so limited-to-myself. I have never wanted a child in my >> o
Re: [-empyre-] Introducing Machine Dreams Contributors: Ana Monroe and Jenny Rhee!
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Hi Jenny and Ana! Many thanks for your responses, and your contributions to the Zine! It is so generative to think of your two pieces in conversation with one another, and while I would not have immediately thought, it really bears interesting questions of labor, aesthetics, and practice. I wanted to go back to Jenny's point about robots and labor, and I wondered if you both could speak to some of the ways the traditions of labor, such as literary scholar, and as industrial designer, and delving into robotics, and in Ana's case, into fiction to render these ideas possible. Moreover, how does labor run through the subject of your pieces as well, I immediately think of Big Dog, and the transgressions of robotic art. best, Margaret On 2017-05-29 10:51, Ana Monroe wrote: Hi All! Thanks again for including me in this exciting discussion. I apologize for my delay in reply; this discussion week caught me in the beaches, boulder fields, and bogs of Iceland, where I was participating in an annual feminist engagement with a small group of long time friends and collaborators. Needless to say, while this this environment was stimulating, exciting, and fascinating (we talked a lot about Earth Sciences), it was not conducive to replying to emails in a timely manner. I've often reflected on the humanization that people foist onto robots and machine aids. I found this resonant with both Jenny's work, Petit Mal, as well as in Margaret's work, Algorithm Beam. In the latter, I found myself in the position of the poet. When reading, I see my child, my program, in the work. I lovingly write the little, proscribed language that, when read in sequence, can deliver to me a great delight: a red light, just as I told her to do! A command fulfilled; I am satisfied. She's so filial, my child. But in the moment following the moment of triumph, I find myself disappointed as well: a daughter who only does what I say? That is so lonely, so narcissistic, so limited-to-myself. I have never wanted a child in my own image. In my read, Jenny's study of Big Dog enters the machine-human interaction into a couple ancient conversations. The first two in my mind are (1) servant-master relationship and (2) the human-animal-civilization complex. In regards to (1), if a person owns a thing, is it a crime to abuse it, physically? If it damages the thing to kick it, or to drive it until its parts fail, can the person be held responsible? Current society draws the line as sentience, speaking to point (2). As an example, if a person drives a Chevy Silverado until it comes apart, then it not a crime. If a person drives a horse or mule or dog until it is lame or dies, then yes, it is a crime. Big Dog uses reasoning so advanced that it could appear to be sentient. Does that advanced reasoning / mimicked sentience mean it should not be beaten, kicked, or driven until it falls apart? I would answer no. But my answer isn't couched in an explicit concern for Big Dog as equivalent to a real dog. It is, instead, couched in my concern for the human resultant from the humanity that has most likely been imposed on Big Dog by its humans. A human who finds that they have driven their Chevy Silverado to the point that it comes apart will often express emotional distress similarly to those expressed at the loss of an animal like a horse, mule, or dog. A human who abuses a thing like Big Dog may not be hurting a real dog, but may be hurting himself or others around him with his cruelty to this non-sentient but emotionally laden object. A conclusion that then leads me to reflect on the necessity of considering objects as having discreet and staggeringly important histories, which which Jenny referred at the latter end of her piece. Petit Mal was really such an interesting piece of writing. Thank you so much for sharing this. In answer to Margaret's question, my interest in robots stems from my formal and informal study of (1) as an industrial designer, the humanization of objects on the parts of humans and (2) as a historian, the economic impact of technological access across societies. As someone from a rural area, I can trace in my personal history the points at which access to technology divided me from childhood friends, shifting the trajectories of our lives away or towards each other. Formalizing this study during my graduate work in Uganda, I find that one of the more understudied and interesting aspects of the current technological paradigm is the uneven distribution of technology - not just luxury technology - but work-a-day or simple technology, across populations. The practice of imaging the near future and its technological a-symmetry in the form of a short story actually came quite naturally to me. Short stories have often been vehicles for criticism and satire, and I explicitly wanted to avoid taking on a technologically rigorous approach so as to talk about the relationships hu
Re: [-empyre-] Introducing Machine Dreams Contributors: Ana Monroe and Jenny Rhee!
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Hi All! Thanks again for including me in this exciting discussion. I apologize for my delay in reply; this discussion week caught me in the beaches, boulder fields, and bogs of Iceland, where I was participating in an annual feminist engagement with a small group of long time friends and collaborators. Needless to say, while this this environment was stimulating, exciting, and fascinating (we talked a lot about Earth Sciences), it was not conducive to replying to emails in a timely manner. I've often reflected on the humanization that people foist onto robots and machine aids. I found this resonant with both Jenny's work, Petit Mal, as well as in Margaret's work, Algorithm Beam. In the latter, I found myself in the position of the poet. When reading, I see my child, my program, in the work. I lovingly write the little, proscribed language that, when read in sequence, can deliver to me a great delight: a red light, just as I told her to do! A command fulfilled; I am satisfied. She's so filial, my child. But in the moment following the moment of triumph, I find myself disappointed as well: a daughter who only does what I say? That is so lonely, so narcissistic, so limited-to-myself. I have never wanted a child in my own image. In my read, Jenny's study of Big Dog enters the machine-human interaction into a couple ancient conversations. The first two in my mind are (1) servant-master relationship and (2) the human-animal-civilization complex. In regards to (1), if a person owns a thing, is it a crime to abuse it, physically? If it damages the thing to kick it, or to drive it until its parts fail, can the person be held responsible? Current society draws the line as sentience, speaking to point (2). As an example, if a person drives a Chevy Silverado until it comes apart, then it not a crime. If a person drives a horse or mule or dog until it is lame or dies, then yes, it is a crime. Big Dog uses reasoning so advanced that it could appear to be sentient. Does that advanced reasoning / mimicked sentience mean it should not be beaten, kicked, or driven until it falls apart? I would answer no. But my answer isn't couched in an explicit concern for Big Dog as equivalent to a real dog. It is, instead, couched in my concern for the human resultant from the humanity that has most likely been imposed on Big Dog by its humans. A human who finds that they have driven their Chevy Silverado to the point that it comes apart will often express emotional distress similarly to those expressed at the loss of an animal like a horse, mule, or dog. A human who abuses a thing like Big Dog may not be hurting a real dog, but may be hurting himself or others around him with his cruelty to this non-sentient but emotionally laden object. A conclusion that then leads me to reflect on the necessity of considering objects as having discreet and staggeringly important histories, which which Jenny referred at the latter end of her piece. Petit Mal was really such an interesting piece of writing. Thank you so much for sharing this. In answer to Margaret's question, my interest in robots stems from my formal and informal study of (1) as an industrial designer, the humanization of objects on the parts of humans and (2) as a historian, the economic impact of technological access across societies. As someone from a rural area, I can trace in my personal history the points at which access to technology divided me from childhood friends, shifting the trajectories of our lives away or towards each other. Formalizing this study during my graduate work in Uganda, I find that one of the more understudied and interesting aspects of the current technological paradigm is the uneven distribution of technology - not just luxury technology - but work-a-day or simple technology, across populations. The practice of imaging the near future and its technological a-symmetry in the form of a short story actually came quite naturally to me. Short stories have often been vehicles for criticism and satire, and I explicitly wanted to avoid taking on a technologically rigorous approach so as to talk about the relationships humans have with each other, with non-sentient machine objects, sentient beings, quasi-sentient beings, and artificial, non-machine sentient beings. In the story, I wanted to produce a binary in which two societies are tied together in political and economic name but are extremely divided in practice. How will these societies use technology differently from one another? What values will be foregrounded by interpretation and how will those values differ across the societies in question? In contrast to this comfortable-to-me approach to examining these topics through short story in my thesis, I found the process of choosing the excerpts for the Zine quite terrifying. Because I wish to discuss things that are not quite nice and because short stories are packed with topics, cutting any one
Re: [-empyre-] Introducing Machine Dreams Contributors: Ana Monroe and Jenny Rhee!
--empyre- soft-skinned space--I’m excited to be joining such a great conversation! Thank you for facilitating this, Margaret! I love Keith’s “Uncanny Emmett Till” piece and his discussion of the valley as justification for the inhuman. I totally agree! The uncanny valley and other “tests” that define the human are often mobilized to de-humanize certain people. This also resonates with Mark’s thoughts on the chatbots and intersectionality. To respond to Margaret’s question, I first became interested in robots as a when I met the robot Leonardo at a robotics lab at MIT. Leonardo looks like a cute, cuddly stuffed animal with very expressive facial features and small, pink human-like hands. It looks a lot like a gremlin before it gets wet. As I was standing face-to-face with this robot, I was really arrested by it and all the complicated ways it was evoking and inscribing the human. I felt very compelled to explore these inscriptions from within the humanities. I felt this urgency even more strongly when I began researching the Department of Defense’s significant role in funding U.S. robotics research (including Leonardo, as well as Predator drones). My interest in robotic art comes from my desire to look for different robotic imaginaries (with their different funding structures and strategic priorities) that offer different visions of the human and possible futures outside of militarization (for example, the pieces in the Machine Dreams Zine!). I’m interested in how the robot inscribes certain visions of humanness and erases others, particularly in relation to race, gender, class, and citizenship. Or in other words, I’m interested in how the robot reflects larger societal practices of dehumanization. Speaking to Margaret’s question about revising, the further I got into my research on robots, the more I kept coming back to labor as the site where robots humanized and dehumanized. Robotic art plays with this attachment to labor in productive ways that at times reflects these attachments and at other times challenges them. all best, Jenny Jennifer Rhee Assistant Professor Department of English Media, Art, & Text Ph.D. Program Virginia Commonwealth University > On May 26, 2017, at 3:31 PM, Margaret J Rhee wrote: > > Hi All, > > These conversation has been so generative, thanks everyone! Buoyed by all the > very exciting work, and appreciate Keith and Sun Yung's insights, and joining > the dialogue! To add to Keith and Sun Yung's wonderful contributions, I'm > pleased to introduce two more participants from the Zine, Ana Monroe and > Jenny Rhee! > > Ana Monroe is a designer and writer, and her inventive short fictional piece, > Les Futures Flanuers, drawn from her MFA thesis at Art Center College of > Design is on page 36. > > As a scholar, Jenny Rhee's moving piece, "Petit Mal, Proprioceptive > Precocity, and Robotic Futures," on Big Dog, and other robotic art is > excerpted from her forthcoming monograph, and included in the Machine Dreams > Zine, page 45. > > Check out their respective work here: > https://issuu.com/repcollective/docs/machine_dreams_issuu > > Their bios are below. > > To begin, like Sun Yung and Keith's exciting work on cyborg poetics and > worlds, could you both speak on the inspirations behind your research on > robots, and fiction writing? More specifically, I understand that both of > your excerpts drew from a dissertation and a thesis, and I wondered if you > could reflect on the process of revising into another form that was published > in the Zine, and in your larger body of work? > > -- > > Jenny Rhee > > Jennifer Rhee is an assistant professor of English at Virginia Commonwealth > University. Her book, All Too Human: Labor and Dehumanization in the Robotic > Imaginary (forthcoming, University of Minnesota Press, 2018), examines > cultural forms and technologies to highlight the robot's entanglement with > dehumanization and devalued labor. Her work has appeared or is forthcoming in > venues including Camera Obscura, Configurations, Postmodern Culture, Mosaic: > A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, and Thresholds. She > is working on a new book on counting technologies and practices, from the > emergence of statistics to contemporary digital surveillance. Bringing > science and technology into conversation with artistic and literary works, > this book examines who determines what counts, who constitutes the uncounted > or the uncountable, and who is all too readily counted. > > Ana Monroe > > One year after earning her Modern History A.B. from Columbia University in > 2004 and following a quick stint as a translator at the first Apple Store in > the world (Soho, New York), Ana began her design training by jumping into the > creative role of Prop Stylist for Still Photography projects. In this > position, Ana was responsible for the physical elements of the shoot
