Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, from Wikipedia

Interactive (Adj.) - capable of acting on or influencing each other

Interact (Verb) - act together or towards others or with others

Human-computer interaction (HCI) - the study of interaction between people (users) and computers. It is an interdisciplinary subject, relating computer science with many other fields of study and research. Interaction between users and computers occurs at the user interface (or simply interface), which includes both hardware (peripherals and other hardware) and software (for example determining which, and how, information is presented to the user on a screen).

Does a computer User interact with computer software? Is it an interaction??

Rodney Brooks from MIT claims that interaction between 1) a program, and 2) the world taking place during the computation, plays a key role that cannot be replaced by any set of inputs determined prior to the computation. In the case of artificial intelligence interaction can be viewed as a prerequisite for intelligent system behavior.

The concept of interaction entails some type of behavioral novelty. Intelligent behavior therefore respectively encodes and reflects the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the environmental states “taking place” during an interaction.

An environmental state is a function of a previous environmental state and the occurrence of one or more events.

State1 —> event —> State2

State1 —> event -> event —> State2

Note also that distinct causes have distinct effects, and as such there are many potential initial states that, upon the occurrence of a distinct event, become State2.

StateA —> event1 —> State2

StateB —> event2 —> State2

StateC —> event3 —> State2

Interestingly, using a thermodynamics-based model, upon reaching State2 one is unable to determine from which previous state one arrived.

In most all cases, a person (usually a domain expert) identifies those environmental states or changes that warrant or necessitate a system response. A computer programmer (who also may serve as a domain expert wrt software creation, testing, debugging, etc.) reflects on the pertinent environmental states, and distinguishing and symbolizing each for use in a computer model.

Computer software developed in such a manner lacks the type of intelligence described by Brooks. Why is that the case? The person who considers which environmental states warrant or necessitate a system response is in fact applying a qualitative assessment in determining such. And while such an approach explicitly accounts for the quantitative aspects of an environmental state, any qualitative considerations remain implicit, the person consciously focusing on distinguishing the environmental states quantitatively.

The issue resides in the way in which environmental states are symbolized. Those states that warrant or necessitate a system response, afford a qualitative sense to the person so making the determination. Only after such an affordance does the person ascribe a symbol reflective of the quantitative (objective) aspects of an environmental state. The symbol selected fails to encode for the qualitative considerations that led to the determination that the environmental state warrants a system response.

This qualitative regime must be modeled and incorporated into computer systems to connect the abstract quantitative symbols to the situation being represented. The qualitative aspects afforded by such a situation are what connect people to the environment in which they live. So too must it be the case with any sensitively adaptive intelligence.

Applying these concepts to web applications leads to the concept of Web2.U.

If you’re interested in this qualitative model please email me.

And as always, your comments are invited.

Much Thanks.

Deficient (adj.)

[Latin deficiens from deficientem, present participle of deficere, to desert, fail]

A present participle is a verb form denoting ongoing action. In Modern English, present participles characteristically end with –ing.

The Latin word “deficere” is formed from de meaning “down, away” and facere meaning “to do, perform.” Deficiency is evidenced in one’s actions, taken in view of the actions for which one is known capable. One who is deficient fails to perform in a way that, but for the deficiency, would otherwise be attainable.

Are you still with me, or are you intellectually deficient?

Now consider the word ‘factitious’ (adjective) -

• produced by man rather than by natural forces
• not produced by natural forces; “brokers created a factitious demand for stocks”
• Created by humans, artificial; Counterfeit, fabricated, not produced by natural forces.

A factitious situation or event is the result of a person’s intentional manipulations. For example, when the “[B]rokers created a factitious demand for the company’s stock,” the demand for the stock was driven not by the actual performance of the company, but by the representations and actions of stock brokers who were intentionally manipulating people’s demand for the stock.

The word factitious comes from the Latin ‘factitius’ which means “artificial.” Factitius comes from the present participle of the Latin word facere, “to do.” Consider the possibility that all human goings-on are factitious. Factitious’s root means ‘to do!’

Stay with this line of thought, the payoff is worth it. facere comes from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) base *dhe- “to put, to do.” Do you see where this is going? Have you solved this little etymological mystery?

In Proto-Indo-European *dhe- meant “to put, to do,” while in Latin de- means “down, away” and ‘facere’ means “to do.” Put the two together and you arrive back at “deficient.” a word encoding how long ago Latin put down PIE languages, acting to keep them down today!

Why does it seem that using the computer is only getting more difficult and time consuming? The standard answer one receives from the ‘experts’ is that computer-based application complexity is directly related to the growth in the scope of the potential implementations. In essence, the more you can do with a computer, the more complicated it is to program and use. End of story.

Or is it??

It’s true that increasing system complexity is outstripping the development of processes for monitoring, diagnosing and repairing such systems. The proliferation of viruses, spyware and unwanted advertising are symptoms of just such failures. Accordingly, IBM has adopted an R&D manifesto calling for the development of ‘Autonomic Computing Systems.’ By incorporating a model of the human autonomic nervous system, IBM is betting that they can design computer systems that protect against threats, and further act to ‘heal’ damaged code. As defined by IBM, an autonomic computing system needs to “know itself” - its components must possess a system identity.

IBM is well down the road with regard to the research and development of computer systems that provide some measure of self-management. What does that mean to the computer user working to understand and use a blog, an RSS reader, technorati, delicious, or some other computer tech du jour? Nothing. IBM’s focus in this case is on the computer, not the computer user. IBM is incorporating a biological model to help ensure the survival of complex computing systems. Note, however, that IBM will attempt to frame the development of such systems as being user-centric; likely by leveraging the concepts of ‘reliability,’ ’stability,’ ‘ dependability,’ etc.

Suppose for a moment that instead of focusing on developing computers that can sense threat, self-protect and self-heal, one set out to develop computing systems that co-operate with the user. A model of the human autonomic nervous system may prove useful with regard to the control of a computing system’s impulsive fight-or-flight responses, but when such ‘involuntary’ impulses produce cooperative behavior, the feeling is disingenuous at best. More likely, such a form of cooperation will be perceived by the user as outright condescension. One must look at a different model upon which computing systems may be designed and implemented if one is to enable human-computer cooperation.

The conceptualization of such a model first requires the consideration of an axiom of technological development distinct from the popular idea that technology is developed to maximize the likelihood of survival. If such is the case then technological development is the cognitive recapitulation of biological evolution.

The Survivalist Model

The first technologies people invented included control over fire and the fashioning of weapons. Fire to provide heat and light, weapons to provide a means of protection and a means for obtaining protein rich food. Of course, some might argue that weapons today aren’t developed to maximize the likelihood of survival. When considered from the point of view of an individual or a nation, however, it can be argued that even the development of the atom bomb was initiated with an eye toward survival.

Arguments Against the ‘Survivalist Model’

Given the second law of thermodynamics, systems tend towards minimum energy and maximum entropy. As demonstrated by Brillouin, entropy in a system is not decreased merely because an agent within the system adds order. By adding order, the agent in fact adds entropy exceeding the amount of order so added. Therefore, it seems absurdist that the ‘goal’ of ‘life,’ is simply survival. Survival is not the end. Additionally, the emergence of cognitive systems such as those exhibited by humans would not preclude the homogenization of information and the concomitant increase in entropy and the decrease in energy. Note also, that given the success evolution has displayed over the millennia, and given the prevalence of human-on-human intolerance and violence, one might just as easily argue that cognition better represents the possible end of the human species rather than its continued survival.

The Self-Discovery Model

An alternative perspective founds the development of technology not simply upon survival, but rather upon the will to maximize the potential for self-discovery. Such a foundation subsumes the survival model, as one’s survival is necessary for a continued process of self-discovery. Note, however, that while there exist belief systems based upon the concept of reincarnation, such does not negate the idea that technology is in fact purposed to serve self-discovery rather than survival.

Two concepts relating to the Self-Discovery model that one ought consider then are ‘direct social benefit’ and ‘technology overhead.’ Direct social benefits are those measurable opportunities for self discovery introduced, or promoted by a given technology. Technology overhead is the measurable cost relating to the implementation of a technology. Whenever a person must consciously act to operate a piece of technology, such as when learning to drive a car, the user becomes an extension of the technology, if only as a means to understand it. For most all technologies, the direct social benefit conferred upon the user far outstrips the proportionately small amount of time spent learning to utilize the technology. Think riding a bicycle, driving a car, reading, writing, etc. The social benefit additionally outweighs the risks associated with injury, or loss of life while employing a technology. Once learned, driving requires very little in the way of one’s conscious attention and one is free to place one’s attention on other things.

It seems that there is only one technology that violates the Self-Discovery Model of technological development, the computer. People are required to spend more and more time learning both how to program and use the computer, rather than simply working with the computer as an additional vehicle for self-discovery. Even as models become more abstract, computing systems become more complex. Whereas abstraction ought to lead to a simplification (the loss of distinctions and cognitive overhead), one finds just the opposite is true with regard to computers. It appears that humanity has considered the computer as simply just another tool to aid survival, when in fact it is to serve as a partner for self-discovery. Therefore, one needs to imbue in a computer more than just a will to survive. The computer must include the ability to discover an increasingly distinguishable sense of identity.

The introduction of such a system represents a turning point in the cognitive evolution of humanity. Computers will manage lower level abstractions that today extract a near intolerable payment in terms of conscious attention. People will be able to refocus on higher abstractions that demonstrate interconnectedness rather than distinction while cooperating with and learning alongside computers.

–If you agree, or if you disagree, please comment and share your thoughts with others…