26 March 2007
Whose fault is it then?
I agree with Thesis 46 in the fact that error is commonly pushed off on someone other than the user of technology. It's easy to blame the complicated boxes in front of you and one-sided shouting matches usually ensue. But fast forward to a time when all of our "ubiquitous computing" is done with simply "real life" interaction. Though some of these technologies already exist like supermarket doors opening while people walk up to it. When is the last time someone blamed the machine for screwing up something as simple as walking. Though I do wonder what the day will be like when such inputs do exist. The blame should be shifted towards people for messing up mundane tasks but I still think we will revel in our intelligence at complicated systems that pick up commands and compute by simple human nature. If I rub my hungry stomach, the kitchen bot should make me a sandwich. Although, shift or no shift of blame, I still think the "inhuman" machines will take responsibility for mishaps though not of their own account.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I love the idea of a kitchen bot! Still I have to diagree with you on shifting the blame back to people. Not because I think you're wrong, I just don't think it'll happen. People like to yell for the sake of yelling. i scream at the mass of gridlocked traffic inbetween me and my apartment every day. No one responds. I scream at my moniter whenever I can't figure out what happened to what I was working on. No response. I scream at the TV when its football season. Mac Brown doesn't respond. People assign blame, scream, yell...whatever because its a release. I'd say its theraputic but all I really know for sure is that screaming, etc. allows me to release blame upon some object.
It is really interesting that people get upset when technology doesn't work they way it is supposed to. But when you think about it, technology is here to assist and enhance a lifestyle, not replace it. So when something goes wrong, you can't really blame the machine. The machine can only do what it is told based on the code that was programmed in them. It doesn't think. There has to be some sort of human interaction otherwise it just sits there. I guess that is the only problem I see with this whole ubiquitous computing: people are just going to depend on the machines and not take any responsibility for anything. I fear the future, not because of the technology, but because of the people who try to use it.
I think the fault lies in balance of the way in which we make our ubiquitous machines in response to problems that might occur on a large scale. While we can't blame the internet for being dreadfully slow when online, we can't really blame ourselves either because we have no control. We must look to the creation of our ubiquitous system extremely carefully to consider all frustrating aspects that might occur out of error in a future of truly hidden complexity. Since ubiquitous systems aim for simplicity in interaction and yet are extremely complex in code we will need to thoroughly plan ways in which to monitor and fix problems of frustration. Computers for now are only what we put into them.
If you really wanted to you could always blame people. We created inadequate road systems to handle such traffic, we bought so many cars, or some idiot is driving really slow, so traffic is our fault. The internet messes up because there is so many using it, or because the technology isn't perfect, so the lack of pristine invention is the inventors fault. But like Ann said, technology is there to assist us, we can't blame it for failing because we created it. Not to replace, but to assist. When the day comes when we completely rely on technology for daily life...eating, sleeping, dressing, walking, driving, talking, seeing...then it can be it's fault.
Post a Comment