HumanMachine Reconfigurations Plans and Situated Actions Preface to

Human-Machine Reconfigurations Plans and Situated Actions

Preface to 1 st Edition • European and Trukese navigators – Caricatures of plans and situated action • Interpretations – Cultural differences in purposeful action – Nature of activity and level of expertise – However planned, purposeful actions are inevitably situated actions • Talk vs. walk, plans are also explanations of action generated for communication • The caricature of western navigation is “reified in the design of intelligent machines”

Interactive Artifacts

Shared Understanding & Mutual Intelligibility • Interpretation of action is the field of social studies – Goal is to come up with accounts of the significance of human action • As part of this, so is the study of how individuals understand one another’s actions – Study how members of society accomplish mutual intelligibility of action • Relationship between observable behavior and processes that make it meaningful – Behavior/action can be part of indefinite number of meanings/goals – Goals can be achieved through indefinite number of behaviors

Understanding Mutual Intelligibility • Relation between actions and the reasoning processes that make them meaningful – In psychology – cognitive focus on formation of beliefs, desires, intentions, etc. – In social studies – focus on interpersonal (interagent) relationships and relations with the environment • Relationship to Simon’s notion of interface

Practical vs. Theoretical Goals of AI • Different meanings ascribed to Strong AI – Machines that reason in the same way as humans – Machines with an intelligence that matches or exceeds that of humans • Weak AI – Develop systems whose behavior appears intelligent regardless of how it is achieved • Perhaps deep understanding is required for either

Interactive Artifacts • Computer as evocative object (Turkle) • Children’s view of computers as blending of – Physical: things we build, design, use – Social: things we communicate with • Human-computer interaction/communication implies mutual intelligibility – Need to answer how this works for humans before considering machines

Cognitive Science and Automata • Automata brought focus on how the structure of an agent generates observable behavior • Mind viewed as neither substantial nor insubstantial but as an abstraction – Introspection-> behaviorism -> cognitive science • Cognitive science combines discussion of – “beliefs, desires, symbols, schemata, planning, problem solving” with scientific method – Testing of cognitive models sufficiency on computers – Often results in a view of intelligence as the manipulation of symbols

Human-Computer Interaction • History: – batch processing -> interactive computing -> shared languages – Borrowed terms from human interaction • Hayes/Reddy say difference is robustness – Ability to respond to unanticipated circumstances – Ability to detect and remedy troubles in communication • Said no graceful systems exist but components are there – Abilities cited are necessary but not sufficient – Work done was in limited domains • Are these arguments still true today?

Should Interaction be Human-like? • Benefits – More natural – More accessible to those that are new to or shy away from technology • Costs – Might conceal miscommunication – May not allow taking advantage of strengths of partners – People have a tendency to assume more capability than shown to exist • Opaqueness of computer also results in reification • Is intentional vocabulary a shortcut?

Self-Explanatory Artifacts • Machines should be able to explain goals and relations of actions to goals • Self-explanatory as: – Obvious/discoverable, e. g. a hammer – Able to explain itself, e. g. training applications • Need to know when not to say things – WEST • Watched student and only interrupted when viewed appropriate • Again how does this relate to systems today?

Understanding Computers • Computer as artifact designed for a purpose • Increasing use of computers means increasingly complex technology should be usable with decreasing training • Purposes are not always obvious (e. g. archeology)

Instruction as a Goal • Face-to-face training relies on specifics and context (different each time) – Tailored to current needs • Written instruction relies on generalization – Reusable for large number of people and situations • Interactive systems can be both reusable and individualized

Computers as Purposeful • Artifacts as presenting not just purposes of users or designers but having their own goals • Designer builds system to be accountably rational • History of Turing Test – Does not care about similarity of process – ELIZA as limited success (Weizenbaum denied intelligence) – DOCTOR (Rogerian therapist) – people assumed reasons even if none existed • Eliza conceals lack of understanding where “graceful interaction” requires it to be made explicit – https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=G 7 JNJRZsz. NE – https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=1 u. Da 7 jk. Iztw