# FleshFactor: HI

---------------------------------------------------------
A E C  F O R U M - "F L E S H F A C T O R"
(http://www.aec.at/fleshfactor/arch/)
---------------------------------------------------------

Humanistic Intelligence (HI)

The goal of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is to produce machines with
human-level intelligence.

The goal of Humanistic Intelligence (HI) is to produce a combined
entity of human+machine inextricably intertwined.  In this sense, the
machine acts as a true extension of the mind and body.

STEPS TOWARD HI: HI is characterized by three aspects:
(1)   A goal of HI is to create a machine that dramatically assists
the human, through a form of synergy, the design of which
recognizes the strengths and weaknesses of each, so that the two
function in a complimentary rather than competitive way.
(This first goal of HI is closely related to so-called
'intelligence amplification'.)
This assistance need not be attained strictly from the machine
itself, but may also be attained from the intelligence of one
or more other human beings, through the facility of the
machine.  For example, in the original photographer's assistant
application, there was typically another human
providing information over the wireless communications
network\protect\footnote {Much of what we will see later pertains
to new forms of communication between humans,
facilitated by the machine.  These new
forms of 'humanistic intelligence' are
related to the principle of the so-called
cyranoid~\protect\cite{milgram}, but are also quite
different.  A person talking
to someone equipped with the form of
humanistic intelligence I propose
experiences a mixture of personalities
and opinions (that of the person in their immediate
vicinity mixed with that of the one or more remote
humans), rather than just the personality of
one remote human as is the case with a
cyranoid~\protect\cite{milgram}.}.
The way that this assistance is inextricably intertwined with the
user is, most notably, of very short latency such that it appears
to be an extension of one's own capability.  This short latency
itself has two facets, which I illustrate by way of example, using
the way that the human mind communicates with its peripherals (parts
of the body):
(1A)        Because of the 'constancy of user-interface' our brain
has to parts of our own body, we have adapted, over many
years, to experience these peripherals as very immediate.
This user-interface is not 'user-friendly' in the
traditional MacIntosh sense, but, rather, it takes many
years to learn. Instead it is 'user-friendly' in a
different sense, that is, it is consistent, so that one
need expend very little mental energy or mental delay to
use it, although this immediacy only develops after a
period of many years of use.
I call this subcriterion 'first brain ephemeral'.
(1B)        We do not experience or perceive
delays when our brain issues commands to parts of our own
bodies.  We do not perceive that parts of our own bodies
have a 'mind of their own' (e.g. are held-up 'waiting
for I/O').  In the this context, I will
propose that the apparatus be thought of as a 'second
brain', so
I will call this subcriterion 'second brain ephemeral'.
Thus because of both constancy of user-interface,
and through its temporal immediacy/responsiveness,
the machine appears as a true extension of the user's mind and body.
I refer to this criterion as the '{\bf ephemeral} criterion'.
(2)   Physically, the human and machine are inextricably intertwined,
to seamlessly fit together into a single unit, in order to meet
the ephemeral criterion stated above.  This inextricable
intertwining has two purposes, the first social, and the second
personal.
(2A)        The social aspect is that others would not perceive the
machine as a separate entity.  This means, for example, that
if one enters a department store or the like, where one is
typically asked to leave one's bag or briefcase at the
counter, that the apparatus should be so-designed that
one is not required to leave behind one's 'second brain'
at the counter, for this would impair constancy of
user-interface (e.g. the ephemeral criterion).
This sub-criterion may be achieved either by making the
apparatus covert, or by situating the apparatus within
our {\em prosthetic territory}~\protect\cite{gonzalez}.
I refer to this sub-criterion as the social eudaemonic
criterion'.
(2B)        The personal aspect also pertains to this long-term
adaptation.  If we ourselves regard the apparatus as part
of our own day-to-day lifestyle --- part of our own existence,
then we will begin to treat it as such, and think of it
as part of ourselves, which also involves an altering of
human perception.  This sub criterion may be achieved by
making the device {\em comfortable}.  I refer to this sub-
criterion as the 'personal eudaemonic criterion'.
I refer to this criterion as the '{\bf eudaemonic} criterion'.
(3)   The apparatus 'empowers' the user (e.g. puts the user in
control).  By this, I mean that the user and his/her intellect
are in the feedback loop of the important high-level processes
of the combined (human and machine) intelligence.  A very simple
example of user-empowerment is an automatic camcorder with
electronic viewfinder and full manual override such that
the interface to the override is ergonomically well-designed.
Although much of the processing ('thought'), such as decisions
regarding exposure settings, is implemented in the 'second brain'
(the machine) the user is still inside the feedback loop by virtue
of the fact that the electronic viewfinder mediates his/her
perception of reality in accordance with decisions that the
system has made.  Thus just as in the ephemeral criterion where
the machine does not exhibit a 'mind of its own' through delays
in responsiveness, here the machine does not exhibit a 'mind
of its own' through the theft of control from the user.
By theft of control I mean the taking of control away from a
user who wants more control.  Indeed, the second brain can and
should have its own 'intelligence', and this in fact may
empower the user (e.g.  the fully automated camera frees the
user to concentrate more on higher level compositional and
cinematographic aspects), but it should not 'enslave' the
user by removal of the mechanism for controllability or observability.
Thus there are two sub-criteria associated with this criterion:
(3A)         The apparatus should afford as much control to the user
as is reasonably possible/practical.
I call this sub-criterion
the 'existential controllability criterion'
(3B)         The apparatus should inform the user of its operation
and operational status as much as is reasonably
practical/possible.
I call this sub-criterion
the 'existential observability criterion'
In order to better understand this criterion, I consider some
counter-examples (e.g. systems that violate it).  An extreme
example of this violation is the synergy of enslavement arising from
the remotely-controlled pain-giving device attached to
prisoners~\protect\cite{hoshen95} to make them into
obedient 'cyborgs'.  This third goal of HI borrows from
existential philosophy the principle of self-determination
and mastery over one's own destiny, as well as from
humanistic psychology, the principle of
self-actualization~\protect\cite{maslow}\protect\cite{xselfact}.
I refer to this last of the three criteria as the
{\bf existential} criterion'.
The eudaemonic and existential criteria also provide a certain
degree of personal assertiveness, which I discuss in Chapters~7, 8,
and~9 of my PhD thesis.  This talk* ("Humanistic Intelligence"), and the
related performance ("The Personal Safety Device") will discuss
humanistic aspects of HI, in particular, principles of self empowerment,
self-determination, and mastery over our own destiny.  I will also present
an apparatus called "WearComp" that meets these three criterion, and is
therefore an example embodiment of HI.  The example application I will
demonstrate on WearComp is "Personal Imaging" -- re-situating the video
camera in a disturbing and disorienting way in order to challenge our
pre-conceived notions of video surveillance in our society (and similar
forms of "interrogative art").

If anyone's interested in further details on this, please email me and
I'll point you to my recent PhD thesis called "Personal Imaging".

steve

Steve Mann <steve@media.mit.edu>

*[Steve will speak/demonstrate/perform at the live FleshFactor Symposium
in Linz, September 9-10, 1997, T.S.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
to (un)subscribe  the Forum just mail to
fleshfactor-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe'/'unsubscribe')
send messages to fleshfactor@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------

`

[FleshFactor] [subscribe]