The Game of Thrones: Human vs Machine Decision Making

ISSUE Link: https://issuu.com/a1741893/docs/g1.1.1.ex5

ARE WE HUMAN QUOTE

Ciligentur alis iunt ditionse volut inctat providem nonsequi adis volor molore volorem num consendande sunt earion rem.

Summary

Humanism vs technology is an expanding field of research wherein modes of design decision making have rapidly evolved in recent decades. New parametric modelling tools have changed the traditional relationship between the designer and their designed objects. I argue that the new design parameters, based on sophisticated algorithms and rules, are undermining human creativity by handing the process of decision making over to the machine. I also argue that the machine has no inherent ethical values and aims for efficiency and perfection. This leads, as our conclusion shows, to diminishing the moral value of designing as a uniquely human action.

Opening + Position Statement

Opening Statement

Ut fugitiaeptat int peliqui ut asimagn itatiae nonse vel ium volupta pra quam reris ium esto volum fugia volupis voluptatur rerchil iscimetur, audis esequunt poreperrovid et que dusam idus eribusd anduciae laboreium remolore dem et eturiae. Nam, quos dolest et ad ut facitiasim hari ut aut que nis sequis aute vel eum, conem re nemod quam faccum repe proviti officiat.

Officae plit hiliqui volupitatem sapis dem untis ea cus, net esequo molor at. Bus sit aut aspernam quodia volupti usanimenis esti tem enit alique int hil ipite aborem erchit offic to millam et ute mosam ut essimin venimet, cus.

Ut dolupta tureped ipicit omnia ventem hillorunt as iuntecescium fugitibus, idebit vidus evendit etus sam, quiat velibus.

As raepratetur, tendeni rehenis et pos verferum laboreped mi, odis debisti oreiusape aut exeriore offictectia quam con re is alique derum quam quo

exeri veni consequi quo et, quod que porectoressi omnim sequam quodis maionec uptatus quam apidus ent viducil moles se re pla serferio delitae lamus sapero cus venitis et que natam voluptatis alic te laborro ressimodit quas dolut est de nullisi resto voluptin nos cus et re ducitis earum simet andit ad que provit ani delessim volecul lecere inciis ipis es sit lat dollam qui solor alibus nimus ex eium qui odipit pos et laut vit quame volenih iciliquid que sin parum essuntur minulparci adit quo eos mi, te ent.

Core Text

Are We Human?

Beatrize Colomina and Mark Wigley’s book Are We Human? portrays the dynamic interplay between humans and technology. The authors highlight the mutual invention of humans and technology, analyse the impact of technological advancement on humanity, prompt a critical question: whether technology invents better humans. The human species is continually re-invented by its own artifacts when humans view themselves and their potential by those artifacts. Tools challenge existing concepts of utility.2 Thus, humans not only invent tools, but tools also invent humans.3 Humans are ‘permanently suspended between being the cause and the effect’.4 However, design can be unethical. To determine whether a design is good, we need to examine whether it will invent better humans.5 The Industrial Revolution invented a new breed of human. Advanced machinery replaced and exceeded humans, as

workers were now viewed as mere extensions of the machinery. There is an endangerment of humanity in the artificial mechanical world.6 Design emerged as a potential mediator to resist this dehumanization.7 However, this goal inevitably fails as modern design often overlooks human needs and raise new humans who do not abide by traditional standards of ‘good’.8 Advocates of human-centred design assert technology as organic extensions of body, empowering and completing humans. The modern human as an enhanced version, reboots itself through technology.9 Despite recognizing human-tech mutual invention, they insists that human is the regulating constant justify itself by comparing to the first human self design with the first tool.10 Some even state that human body is the first technological tool.11 However, suspicions also arise concerning technology’s negative impacts, which is also inherently human. Despite aims for self-improvement, unintended self-

destruction persists. The distinguished human brain harbours trouble: its inventions can victimize humans.12 Human intelligence also lagged behind technical advancement, lacking ability for control.13 The mechanized slaughter in World War II also warns the danger of human instability and artifacts. Powerful artifacts created by unstable and self-threatening humans are very dangerous.14

Literature Review

Literature Review (from S1)

In our journal article we will be reviewing the use of technology by the designer and its impact on the architectural designer’s creativity in creating a design outcome. Our discussion will explore the various technologies that designers use, the ways in which they both foster and harm human creativity, and how these technologies are evolving us in return. The primary idea that we will explore in this article is the adaptation of parametric design software in design practice, and whether the use of these tools to generate and explore creative ideas robs the designer of the innate creativity required to produce engaging architectural spaces. This technology has enabled designers to use preset, ready-made components in their design process, which can speed up production, but potentially at the expense of the creative potential of more bespoke design solutions. These programs encourage the swift use of pre-made components and encourage

designers to not leave the scope of what is ‘easy’ and ‘fast’. With these elements becoming more and more prevalent in architectural practice, it is important to understand and study how these technological advancements have and continue to evolve design thinking, and the impact on the creative potential of the architectural designer. Through our research, we hope to explore whether these tools truly are in aid of the designer, or whether the designer has simply become a slave to the technology’s sense of design. Some designers highlighted in ‘Are We Human’ argue that the benefits of advancing technology create ‘superpowered humans’, capable of much more than ever before. Students can advance their skills faster than the past, being able to produce drawings and designs much faster than the days of hand drawing.27 Other people mentioned, however, discuss the harmful effects, including the inaction and neglect shown towards students in their evolutionary process as designers.

FULL PAGE IMAGE

Relevance

What?

The sources that we have selected for this article are related to parametric design tools used in architectural practice, the human nature of design, and the machines’ role in design.

Books

Patrick Schumacher gives a clear description of the emergence, development and future trends of digital parametric tools from both technical and sociological perspective. John Fraser illustrates the complete renewal of architectural thinking system caused by mechanical, particularly parametric, design tools. He presents this phenomenon in a figurative way by giving examples, quoting famous statements and logical inference. Harold Nelson book explores the nature of design itself as a ‘deeply human activity’, and emphasizes the ‘intentional and purposeful aspect of design’. His argument is that design is not simply a

techincal process but a process that is a deeply human endevour.

Articles

Rivka Oxman has expertise in digital architectural design from both technical and practical perspectives. She also explains the parametric tools’ impact on the structure and materiality. She proposes a conceptual framework and theoretical foundation for digital design, examining recent theoretical and historical contexts. She also outlines design characteristics and formulates paradigmatic classes of digital design. There are a set of articles that records some experiments on the impact of parametric tools on the creativity of architectural designers. In the first article, the authors compare designers’ cognitive processes and creative output with and without parametric tools. The second article focuses on the type of parametric tools and suggests that confirmative DMP fosters creativity, while simulative DMP supports divergent and convergent thinking for creative

outcomes. Similarly, findings in the third article indicate greater support for design problem reformulation in GMEs compared to PDEs. Conversely, PDEs, known for facilitating parallel design solutions, appear more supportive in the solution space. These results support our first argument (3). An article writien by Daniel Fallman, ‘Design-Oriented Human-Computer Interaction’, explores the idea of what exactly ‘design’ is and its relation to human-computer interaction. Design is explored through different design theories of conservative, romantic, and pragmatic. The article proposes that the role of design in HCI must be acknowledged, and the difference must be explored between ‘knowledge-generating design oriented’ research and ‘artifact generating conduct of research oriented design.’

Why?

During our research, we chose sources based on several different criteria. Firstly, we selected sources that engage with the various aspects of our discussion, both on the broader field of research of Humanism and Technology, and also parametric design in architectural practice. Secondly, we chose sources that were authored by people who have an established and credible voice in the field of humanism and parametric design. Our primary sources are strongly involved in the discourse surrounding the topic, and therefore can be reasonably engaged with as reputable voices. Secondly, we made sure to choose a mix of sources that argue both for and against the role of parametric design in architectural practice. We also specifically chose some sources that recorded experiments within practice on the impact of parametric tools on the creativity of architectural designers, as these sources look to find specific evidence of the impact of these tools.

fig. 1: Image one

How?

John Fraser’s work greatly supports our first argument (3) by describing how machines takeover, take control and undermine humans in the architectural creative process. For example, he stated that: The term “tool” in our context doesn’t diminish the significance of these techniques as mere aids but rather emphasizes their pivotal role in challenging conventional practices. Computer should mirror traditional design methods, highlighting their inadequacy and the potential for machines to offer more imaginative solutions. Our tools aim to break away from existing norms and are integral to cratiing a new model of the architectural generative process. Schumacher gives a clear description of the emergence, development and future trends of digital parametric tools from both technical and sociological perspective. First, regarding the emergence of the parametric tool, he stated that stated that ‘Parametric

design is architecture’s answer to contemporary, computationally empowered civilisation, and is the only architectural style that can take full advantage of the computational revolution that now drives all domains of society.’ Second, he also portraits the current scope of parametric design in the field of practice, that parametric design tools and scripts allow the precise formulation and execution of intricate correlations between elements and subsystems. Third, he pointed out that parametric design is going through a cycle of innovative adaptation and criticise certain aspects of the current tools according to the current socioeconomic demands. Therefore, his book is helpful for us to both set the field of research and establish our second argument (4).

Kas Oosterhuis talked more about the renewal impact of parametric architectural tools on a sociological perspective. He pointed out that mass customization, heralded by industrial

and household fabrication, is reshaping architecture fundamentally. Digital parametric design, linked to CNC production, births a new complex yet controlled aesthetic. Nonstandard architecture, costeffective yet intricate, redefines architectural expression in the modern era. His work will support our second argument and conclusion (4). The implications for ‘digital design thinking’ are explored and discussed in Oxman’s work (4). The sources are all fundamental in supporting the propositions we are making in this discussion, as they are reliable and informative insights into the discussion around parametric tools. They lay the path for a solid bedrock in understanding how parametric tools are used in architectural practice, how these tools may undermine fundamental human creativity through their application, the lack of ethical values of software, and lays the way to conclude that the value of designing is a human action.

FULL PAGE IMAGE

Discussion

I argue that the new design parameters, based on sophisticated algorithms and rules, are undermining human creativity by handing the process of decision making over to the machine. I also argue that the machine has no inherent ethical values and aims for efficiency and perfection.

Undermining of Human Creativity

In the literature reviewed a case is made that designing through the machine fundamentally undermines the human creative process. John Fraser describes how machines take decision making control from the human. He issues concerns about the autonomy of the creative process using machines, and how the heavy reliance on machines to do creative work results in a final product that lacks depth by missing out on the human agency in design. Harold Nelson makes a case that design itself is a ‘deeply human activity’. He argues that design is not a simply technical process, so therefore these machines that rely

on technical processes to design are inherently undermining the human creative process.

On the other hand, arguments are made that machine design tools are simply an extension of human design that can enhance innate human creative processes. There is a group of studies that supports this argument, where the use of parametric software in architectural practice was researched and finds advantages to the cognitive design process with the use of parametric tools as a supporting method.

Though the literature can be divided on the argument around machine’s place in the human creative process, it can be theorised that the machine can be used as a powerful supplementary design tool beside the human creative process, however too much reliance on the machine to lead the creative process can result in designs that are too based in technical processes, rather than founded in true human creativity.

Ethics of the Machine

Beatriz Colomina stresses that design and technology have strong influences over human experience and behaviour. Machines are a tool that originate from the human mind, however there is argument that the machine is incapable of truly sharing humanities ethical considerations. Due to technologies increasing influence on the human world, it is imperative that the ethical implications of these technologies are considered. As the literature argues, this technology that humans create naturally inherits humanity’s flaws, biases and prejudices, and proactive critical reflection on the design decisions made by the machine is essential to maintain our human moral values. Gerd Leonhard writes on the debate of humanism vs technology, and states that technology has the potential to perpetuate socioeconomic injustices unless designers act responsibly to keep it in check.

It can be theorised based on these arguments that while technology can be beneficial, humanity must be careful when using machines for design processes to carefully analyse whether the outputs are in line with human ethical standards.

fig. 1: Image one

Conclusion

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolving relationship between humans and technology within design practice has major creative and moral implications. Colomina and Wigley put forward the notion that humans and technology are intrinsically connected and influence each other. Throughout time humans have created tools and have subsequently been shaped by these very tools in a cycle of evolution. While this new technology has incredible potential to amplify the creativity of human designers, there is inherent risk in these machines – which rely on data and assumptions to design – to take creative control from the designer. Too much decision making control given to these machines can compromise the essence of design as a uniquely human activity.

Furthermore, Colomina and Wigley argue the notion that technology is an extension of humanity and inherits our qualities. While this can include positive traits, there is grave danger of these technologies perpetuation negative human qualities – flaws, biases, inequalities and social injustices – and use these characteristics to perpetuate design ideas that go against our human morals and ethics. These technologies cannot understand some deeply nuanced layers of design and humanity, and require careful human supervision in order to steer this technology in a direction that serves humanity in a positive way.

As technology evolves with us, we are bound to encounter more discourse around the agency of tools in the design process. In today’s age, the rise of Artificial Intelligence is creeping into the design world, bringing with it more capacity to create. However, its important to continue the discussion around the human nature of design into

these upcoming technologies to ensure that we do not forget about humanities role in the design process.

Parametric design is sure to persist and evolve with design practice, and the responsibility now rests on the designer to maintain the position of design as a uniquely human activity.

FULL PAGE IMAGE

End Notes

- To Be Completed -

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Book 1: Schumacher, P. (2016). Parametricism 2.0: rethinking architecture’s agenda for the 21st century: Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century (1st ed., Vol. 240). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Book 2: Fraser, John. An Evolutionary Architecture. Architectural Association, 1995.

Book 3: Nelson, Harold G., and Erik Stolterman. The Design Way : Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Second edition., The MIT Press, 2012.

Secondary Sources

Article 1: Oxman, Rivka. “Theory and Design in the First Digital Age.” Design Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, 2006, pp. 229–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. destud.2005.11.002.

Article 2: Oosterhuis, Kas. “Simply Complex, toward a New Kind of Building.” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 1, no. 4, 2012, pp. 411–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foar.2012.08.003.

Article 3: Lee, J. H., Gu, N., & Ostwald, M. J. (2015). Creativity and parametric design? Comparing designer’s cognitive approaches with assessed levels of creativity. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(2), 78–94. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/21650349.2014.931826

Article 4: Creative Decision-Making Processes in Parametric Design.” 2020. Buildings 10 (12): 242. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/

buildings10120242. https://www. proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ creativedecision-making-processesparametric/docview/2471300426/se-2.

Article 5: Comparing Designers’ Behavior in Responding to Unexpected Discoveries in Parametric Design

Environments and Geometry Modeling Environments, Rongrong Yu, Ning Gu, and Ju Hyun Lee, International Journal of Architectural Computing 2013 11:4, 393-414

Article 6: Fallman, Daniel. “DesignOriented Human-Computer Interaction.” In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, edited by ACM, 225–232. 2003.

Article 7: Evangelidou, Stella. 2023. Parametric Design in the Historic Urban Domain. The Case of Eleftheria Square by Zaha Hadid Architects. Architecture Philosophy 6 (1/2): 117–38.

Image Sources - To Be Completed -