Humans and Their Machines (2)

The video and computer game industry has been developing more and more sophisticated models of interactivity to allow us to more fully explore the closeness that we have established with screen-based experiences. But, the connections between interactivity and technology have been with us since popular culture became a part of everyday life in the nineteenth century especially with the invention of film and photography. The futurists argued for the destruction of conventional theatre in the 1920’s as a way of overcoming the distance between viewer and stage. The desire to produce interactive environments accelerated in the 1960’s and found its fullest expression in the use of cybernetic concepts and ideas from research into artificial intelligence. There is a wonderful story to be told here in the movement from performance art through to happenings, installations, the advent of sophisticated imaging devices and even more sophisticated information storage technologies and how all of this has been wrapped into gaming culture.

The gaming community has contributed to the development and growth of new interactive media and in some respects has provided the foundation for the shift into digital and virtual environments. Many of the claims for “virtuality” are in essence claims about the breadth, the infinite ability that we have to use our imaginations to bring us into contact with any number of different phenomena. All of these elements are about the expansion of the traditional ground for “play” in our culture. The difference is that we are now attributing a great deal of power to the technology of play. We need to explore the implications of that cultural choice in the context of the shared dialogue that we have developed with nonhumans.

The book, Hal’s Legacy: 2001’s Computer as Dream and Reality devoted itself to examining whether the human characteristics of the HAL computer were or are possible. Generally, most of the writers come to the conclusion that HAL was ahead of its time and beyond ours. Interestingly, the book was written by scientists who were genuinely interested in the cultural assumptions that went into the creation of HAL as a character in the film 2001.

Even though the chess computer DEEP BLUE, appears to confirm our worst cultural fears about technology, it remains extremely limited when compared to the full range of knowledge and emotions that make up human consciousness. Yet, what persists culturally, is the sense that intelligence can be programmed into computers. As one of the writers in the book suggests, “to tackle the question of whether a machine like HAL could exist, we need to ask how such a machine would acquire knowledge. The answer must be that the machine would need to be endowed with sufficient intelligence to understand any experience it confronted.” (183) It is not a question of programming computers to be like humans. It is a matter of understanding that we share a similar ground with computers that now precludes the possibility of existing without them.

I bring up the example of HAL because I am fascinated with the urgency that surrounds our culture’s pursuit of computer-based experiences. I do not mean this in a pejorative way. On the contrary, I participate in and often relish the urgency and am very devoted to what my computer can offer me. At the same time, I do not treat my computer as if it were intelligent. In fact, much of my time with computers is spent training myself in the rules and codes that I need to operate within the digital environment.

The attribution of power to the computer is based on a misunderstanding of the ways in which computational structures are created and the rather limited set of possibilities that any program actually envisages. This is ultimately about the limitations of any device to respond to the multitude of demands that humans make upon machines. Some important questions come to mind:

· What does it mean to talk about the computers as if they were machines?

· Don’t our references for the word machine come from another era?

· Is a computer just a smart television screen?

· Or is it a smart combination of analogue and digital components to produce the illusion of intelligence?

· What does it mean to attribute human qualities to the screen — to the computer?

· What does it mean to talk about the memory of a computer?

· Is the distinction machine/human a non-starter?

· Does the distinction human/technology contribute to a breakdown of the continuous inter-relationship and inter-dependence that exists between humans and their creations?