Morlock Elloi on Tue, 19 Mar 2019 06:19:01 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Banality of code |
This new class of thinking objects makes decisions on the fly. So what are these objects, really? Cats? No, cat is relatively predictable and not too smart, plus rather fearful. These objects enforce complex policies, and can make life-critical decisions. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that all the glitches are fixed; today's thinking objects may be slightly retarded inexperienced beginners, but tomorrow they are going to get rather good.
What happens when an object makes an appropriate policy-based decision that you disagree with? From PKD's Ubik:
--- ... he therefore vigorously strode to the apt door, turned the knob and pulled on the release bolt. The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.” ---It totally doesn't matter if thinking objects make life 'better'. That's bs marketing copy. They act without warning, because we cannot read their face or mood. They make things happen to us unconditionally; there is no exchange.
These objects perform activities without responsibility and fear of repercussions; they don't have self-preservation drive; you cannot threaten them. The ones who defined the policy and its execution are safely far away.
These objects are only following orders, and they don't give a f*ck if you hang them.
On 3/18/19, 13:25, tbyfield wrote:
Obviously, quite a lot has happened since then, and a big part of it has to do with the growing reliance on computation in every aspect of aviation. In short, the problem isn't limited to the plane as a technical object: it also applies to *the entire process of conceiving, designing, manufacturing, and maintaining planes*. This interpenetration has become so deep and dense that — at least, this is how I take Morlock's point — Boeing, as an organization, has lost sight of its basic responsibility: a regime — organizational, conceptual, technical — that *guarantees* their planes work, where 'work' means reliably move contents from point A to B without damaging the plane or the contents.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: