User:Manetta/serving-simulations/the-human-simulation-as-interface

serving simulations: the human-simulation as interface

[questions]
How is artificial intelligence mainly an interface?
What are the element one can describe of this interface?
What could be the functions/purposes of these elements?

[underground questions]
How does the computer interpret human speech?

These days we have Siri's, Cortana's, Google Now's and Echo's produced by Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon. It are pieces of software promoted as being the personal assistences of the future, that mostly react on commands that you give it through your voice. "It's a feature all about our voice. (…) It helps you get things done just by asking."[1] They all interact with their users without much physical interaction. The main part of this software is build around one incoming medium of information: the human voice.

empathy: user-friendliness?

[what - human simualtion]
Is it really "man's dream since the birth of science" to "create an artificial being", as Steven Spielberg stated in the introduction of his film A.I.? How do we interact with software that is designed to be mimicing its user? It's another question to ask if we don't feel uncomfortable to speak with an human simulation. But what is the purpose behind the choise to create an human simulation as interface? Is this a gesture of user-friendliness? In order to let the user interact with the interface as smooth as possible?

If software is being designed in order to be as 'smooth' as possible, it reminds me of the tranforming abilities a chameleon naturally has. They "have the ability to change colours" which "functions in social signaling and in reactions to temperature and other conditions, as well as in camouflage."[2]

What are the functions of the human simulation as being part of an AI interface? What are its social purposes? And, is there a camouflage-purpose involved?

[functions of an AI simulation: the human-simulation as metaphor]

The denominator 'artificial intelligence' itself is already containing a metaphor. By valuating the accomplishments of a computer system with the word 'intelligent', is already using an identifier that we normally use to valuate human's capacity to have e.g. a good memory, a certain level of learning abilities, and skills for problem solving. By using the metaphor 'intelligent' for a computer system, one is trying to understand a complex process by comparing it to human characteristics.

The metaphor of 'being human' as is present in the AI interfaces, seems to not only simplify the system behind it, but has another purpose as well. By interacting with an interface that feels like it is an human, raises a certain level of empathy.

Wikipedia describes the term as: "Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, ie, the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes."[4]

The human-simulation can be seen a form to understand and describe problems and solutions one runs into while using the software. But because the software is an 'human', it causes reactions of diappointment, impatience, or even anger. But also reactions of surpriseness, or astonishment.

Next to that, the human-simulation interface also knows a low level of intelligibility. As it operates with the human vocabulary, a tool that the user is pretty comfortable with already. There is no need for learning another language anymore.

It's this aspect of comfort that raises a whole set of possibilities according to Apple: it's making the users eyes free, so it can drive, text, call, search, and being a king in multitasking. It makes "everyday tasks less tasking."[3] Because: "All you have to do is ask."[3] And it's always on, which makes it a pretty reliable feature, one who's always there for its user.

But;

It is exactly this comfort, and this smoothness that makes it possible for the interface to be adapted easily by its users. The system is already pretty human-like from out of the box, but it is evolving while using it. It then seems to 'get to know you', which is another metaphor to use an human characteristic. As the AI system manages to answer the expectations of its user, it's also establishing a certain amount of trust (another human metaphor). This all will lead to a smooth attendance of AI software in the user's life. Let's compare it with the act of the chameleon: a creature that owns a system that can easily adapt itself into a new surrounding, and therefor be almost fully camouflaged.

…

And after a while the user starts to appreciate that the AI software is delivering information automagically[5]. Getting it delivered just before knowing where it is looking for. "Siri is proactive, so it will question you until it finds what you’re looking for."[3]


[1] Apple's Keynote - presenting Siri, 2011
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chameleon/
[3] https://www.apple.com/ios/siri/
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
[5] term used by Michael Murtaugh in February 2015 at the PZI, Rotterdam

profit: who serves who? (in process)

In 1995 Brian Massumi already mentioned a blurred boundary between the information requester (the master) and information deliverers (the servants). Who is serving who? Who adjusts himself to who? The user is surely not only the master. Massumi described it as "the human-designed machine designing the human".

[master-servant dialectic references]

[article about the advantages that AI devices bring?]
[motherboard article about voice detection]

[marketing dialectic] : To communicate with an artificial intelligence interface is like interacting with an imaginary model of an human being. The 'human' is a metaphor. It's a metaphor that doesn't only refer to an iconic representation, in which an human is imitated as well as possible. There is also a symbolic reference to the human being, one that has been used to promote the products to the world: being intelligent. It's already in the name.

Aren't metaphors following the intention of the one who uses them? And how is this metaphor (slowly, or less slowly) escaping the arena of the marketing world, to become part of our daily vocabulary?

present elements of relying on a master:

• in charge of your calendar, notes, messages
  
• becoming angry at your device, when it didn't performed as expected
  

 (but it won't improve its behavior)

simulation: who adapts to who? (in process)

The AI interfaces are build as simulations. They are designed with an attempt to reach a level of intelligence that comes as close as possible to the complexity of human intelligence. The more 'human' an interface seems to be, the more 'intelligent' we name it. This leads to a marketing dialectic of making something that is 'smart', which actually means 'as human-like as possible'. And hence we now live with a range of such 'intelligent' dogged attempts: the Siri's, the Cortana's and the Echo's.

[STT]:
An AI interface challenges the computer software at the moment that a voice is pronouncing a command. At that moment, the speech-to-text software of the specific device is activated. It tries to interpret the incoming sounds and turn them into words. It looks into its ngram files if it can recognize a certain word-combination pattern, in order to slowly glue the words into sentences.

[TSS]

[linked data]
It's the connection to an (online) source of information,
[concept interpretation]


characteristics of machine intelligence:

• always available, (related to Massumi)
  
• 
  

conclusion (in process)

[computers made for specific tasks]: It are the characteristics that lack a human, that make the AI interface look intelligent. It's faster in looking into Wikipedia to search for simple facts. But isn't that a kind of task where computers are built upon?

[it's much about the use of metaphors]

[bigger subjects]:

[NLP, interpretation of human language]

[how much do we/users trust on machines?]

[user-friendliness expansion, untill the machine is almost not present anymore]