ADB is a modular robot for tactile intimacy. Loosely resembling a snake the object mechanically responds to the presence of skin, attempting to get as close to the surface as possible. The robot quickly comes to rest on a still body, so continued animation depends on a participant's active engagement. Stroking or rubbing the robot will result in it pushing back and occasionally grasping onto a body part. Participants may experience the object at their leisure. They can play with the device, exploring how it feels, and how it responds to their touch.
[Deep Blue / photo: Marshall Astor] Inspiration for the project is drawn from Deep Blue, the computer that defeated former world champion Garry Kasparov in the now legendary 1997 chess match. This event marked a tipping point in the popular imagination when the suggestion of a machine intelligence became tangible. Prior to Deep Blue machines had already demonstrated superior brawn, and superior ability to process information measured in MIPS, but these strengths were always used for human service. Chess is different. Clearly chess adheres to a logic to which computers are disposed, but it is a game created for the entertainment of people. It is generalized abstraction of wars fought throughout history complete with characters and relationships between them. And for the players, chess brings waves of emotions experienced through the gains and losses of the imaginary battle they fight. In the words of Emma Pierson, a 16 year old competitive chess player, "A chess game is a microcosm of life, decades of joy and tragedy condensed into a few hours." To what end then should a computer be made to play this game? Surely, it's not because machines have a deep emotional need to play. They derive no sensations in any way to which people can relate. It's also not merely explained as practice for players. The entire match between Kasparov and Deep Blue was itself a sensation, more exciting than most ranked competitions between grandmasters. No, Deep Blue was created to demonstrate that presently a machine is not only competent but even superior in a domain considered distinctly human.
[The emotional toll of chess on Bobby Fischer] In the grand scale of possible redundancies, chess is none too scary an obsolescence. What is more worrisome are the many lingering questions. Why is the replication of humane behaviors interesting? What's next? Are there any aspects of being human that can't be tasked in a machine? If not, where does that leave us, and why on earth are we building them? In the decade that has passed since Deep Blue's triumph, machines have continued to be extended into once human domains. Hedge funds automate the allocation of investors' money through the use of quants, computers containing complex models of the stock market, tracking flows of money, speculating how to make profit, and then carrying out trades. At quite the other end of the utility spectrum Wim Delvoye created Cloaca, a machine capable of defecating. |
|||
