The Game of Thrones: Human vs Machine Decision Making

“Design literally takes shape, makes shape, through the indeterminacy of the human. Or, to say it the other way around, there would be no concept of design if the human was something clear and stable.”

- From ‘Are We Human’

Summary (100 words)

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 inherits humanity’s biases, flaws, and prejudices with disregard to human moral values. This leads, as my conclusion shows, to diminishing moral value of design as a uniquely human action.

Are We Human?

Beatrize Colomina and Mark Wigley’s book ‘Are We Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design’ engages with the subject of Humanism and Technology, and how the technology we invent fundamentally alters how we behave as humans. The authors highlight the cyclical evolutionary nature of the relationship between humans and technology, how these relationships can influence our behaviour, and the dangers faced by leaving these technologies unchecked. Two chapters from this book form the basis of the discussion for this article: Chapter 6 ‘News from Nowhere’ unfolds the evolving relationship between humans, technology and design from the midnineteenth century to the late twentieth century. Chapter 9 ‘Human Centred Design’ presents diverse perspectives on the relationship between humans and design. It proposes that design itself is a way for humans to define humanity itself as a form of self-exploration.

Humans design tools as an extension of themselves.¹ Since early humans first created primitive tools, we have utilised these creations to rapidly evolve as a species, and in turn these technologies have evolved alongside us. As such, humans are ‘permanently suspended between being the cause and effect’. ² This feedback loop of influence has fundamentally changed how we live, think and design today. Samuel Butler published in 1863—based on Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution—that the first human tools had now evolved as a ‘living species of their own right as a form of mechanical life.’ As these tools become their own lifeform, the question is whether humans become superhuman through these tools or have manufactured their own demise.

‘If the human is a question mark, design is a word for how that question is engaged.’3 This is the opening sentence to chapter 9 of are we human, and it sets the scene for the core discussion of this article. Colomina and Wigley make

the argument that while the human is something that is hard to define, design is the way that we explore this question. Design can be a method to preserve the human. Design can be a countermeasure towards the threat of humanity. Ultimately, as the author argues, design is a paradox that changes the very thing it protects. This exploration of the self through design, however, raises the question of not what we design, but how we design. With the implementation of exponentially advanced technology into the architectural design workflow, does the act of giving the design process over to the machine undermine the very core of the purpose of design?

Humanism vs Technology

As technology has advanced over time its influence has had clear impacts on the architectural design profession and has garnered substantial academic interest from emerging designers and theorists in the field. The literature reviewed here focuses on the emergence of parametric design software in architectural practice, and its impact on the human creative design process. There is also substantial literature reviewing the moral implications of the relationship between humans and technology, and the responsibility of the designer to mediate the design outcomes from this software.

Human Creativity and the Design Process

Several sources highlight the importance of designer input in the creative process, in opposition of creative control being given over to the machine. For instance, Harold Nelson in ‘The Design Way’ makes the argument that design itself is a ‘deeply human activity’, an intrinsic human trait that thrives on native unpredictability. 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.4

Daniel Fallman’s study on designoriented Human-Computer interaction examined competing accounts of design theory on ‘what is design’ and the role of sketching in the HCI design process. These findings theorise that design is an unfolding activity that required deep involvement from the designer and cannot be performed solely by the computer.5

Additionally, Ju Hyun Lee et al. in their study on creative decision-making reviews the cognitive process of decision making in design and creates a framework for understanding the types of decisions that are made in order to develop a design. Their findings indicate that while machines can be a powerful creative tool, more successful design outcomes are birthed from the designer switching between computer and sketch design in a cyclical process, rather than solely relying on the machine for the creative decision making.6

Morality of the machine

As the technology that we have integrated into our lives exponentially gains power in our world, there is a serious moral responsibility placed on humanity to ensure that human values are upheld. This moral debate has sparked a great deal of academic interest. Gerd Leonhard argues that technology has no ethics, and that the nature of ethics is a unique human signifier and differentiator to technology.7 He also argues that while technology can simulate human interactions to a degree, it can never truly understand human values of happiness, fulfillment, self-realisation, emotion, values and belief. To this end, the technology that we integrate into our design methodologies must be seriously monitored to preserve human values and security. He also warns of the lack of foresight around the rapid evolution of technology, and the consequences of blindly advancing this technology with no accountability for the repercussions.8

Matthew Poole also speaks to these issues. He argues that parametric design’s focus on aesthetics and form come at the expense of considering ethical and social issues. Due to the software’s emphasis on data and algorithms, the resulting designs have a detachment from what it means to be human, and how this is manifested within the architectural realm. He argues that the moral responsibility, therefore, is placed on the designer to ensure that aesthetics and form do not overrule the need to address issues of equality, morality, and human values.9

Some articles and studies also support these theories. A case study on Zaha Hadid’s parametrically designed Eleftheria Square in Nicosia illustrates an example of the shortcomings of technology-lead design on considering moral and social values. This plaza was chosen as the winner of a competition for the square’s refurbishment to much controversy among locals. The discussion in this case study focuses on

the appropriateness of the proposal in terms of it’s prioritisation of aesthetic form, which has been imposed within the historical, political, cultural and social context of the city. The study illustrates that human issues such as historical layering, local habits, social connections, and the existing plaza’s use were given minimal consideration, and that the resulting from—derived from surface level data—produces a design that ignored the moral and social values of the existing site users.10

Furthermore, Alberto Perez Gomez supports this in his argument that for architecture to be ethical it must actively promote social justice and human wellbeing through its design. He also highlights the importance of human emotions in architectural spaces, and that parametric design’s emphasis towards form and aesthetics does not take this into account without human intervention.11

Relevance

These sources offer a wide scope of analysis on the presented argument from a variety of sources. The four books that form the basis of this study come from writers that have established voices in the field of humanism, technology, and parametricism. ‘Are We Human’ by Colomina and Wigley establishes the field of humanism and technology, and the origins of what we consider to be human.12 ‘Technology vs Humanity: The Coming Clash between Man and Machine’ by Gerd Leonhard illustrates the relationship between humans and technology, and the threats made possible by careless adoption of rapidly evolving technologies.13 ‘The Politics of Parametricism’ by Matthew Poole establishes the field of parametric design and its propensity towards disregarding human moral values and ethics.14 Finally, Harold Nelson in ‘The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World’ establishes design as a ‘deeply human action’ that is undermined by the reliance on algorithmically driven parametric design.15

These primary sources are also supported by a series of secondary sources in the form of articles and case studies. ‘Creative Decision-Making Processes in Parametric Design’ by Jun Hyuin Lee et al.16 and ‘Design-Oriented Human-Computer Interaction’ by Daniel Fallman support the argument by defining design, elaboration on the relationship between designer and tool in architectural practice.17 Furthermore, ‘Ethics, Emotion, and Aesthetics: Architecture after the Crisis of Modern Science’ by Alberto Perez Gomez18 and ‘Parametric Design in the Historic Urban Domain’ by Stella Evangelidou investigates the ethical and moral shortcomings of parametric design from a theoretical standpoint in addition to a case study.19

These sources were chosen for their collective ability to establish a clear setting for the argument presented, covering a wide range of fields, ideas and authors. These sources support the argument that the machine diminishes the moral value of designing as a uniquely human action.

Image 2. Zaha Hadid’s design for Eleftheria Square

Undermining of Human Creativity

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 inherits humanity’s biases, flaws, and prejudices with disregard to human moral values, resulting in the diminishing value of design as a uniquely human action.

In the literature reviewed an argument is made that designing through the machine fundamentally undermines the human creative process. Design itself is a deeply human act that is more than a technical process, relying on more innate human qualities and experiences that cannot be truly simulated by a machine. By handing control of the design process completely over to the machine, we risk losing the human element of design. Parametric software only has a capacity to process data and algorithms, which results in architectural products that emphasise aesthetic and formal values, completely negating—or

is incapable of—incorporating the depth of human agency in design. Too much reliance on these technologies to design our architecture—and subsequently our world—is ruinous.

Despite this, however, parametric design software can still be valuable as a component of the design process, with studies showing that the process of switching between software and analogue design methods can result in a highly successful design, as the power of the technology works in collaboration with the more innate human qualities it lacks.

Ethics of the Machine

Colomina and Wigley stress that design and technology have strong influences over human experience and behaviour. Technology has evolved from humanity, and in return humanity has developed in a cyclical process. While the machine is a tool that originates from the human mind, it lacks the ability to truly share humanity’s ethical values and beliefs, due to the un-simulatable aspects of humanity. This lack of understanding creates potential for parametrically designed architecture to perpetuate socioeconomic injustices, and stress human biases and prejudices. The resulting designs of this technological flaw are detached from what it means to be human and creates spaces that go against our human values and goals. Due to this technology that humans create naturally inheriting humanity’s flaws, biases and prejudices, the responsibility is on humanity itself to engage in proactive critical reflection on the design decisions made by the machine to maintain our human moral values. The distribution of these tools

is also to be considered, as Leonhard argues, as technology rapidly advances careful effort must be taken to ensure that the benefits are fairly distributed between all humanity. A concentration of ‘technological wealth’ in certain places or groups could further set others behind and create a further divide of injustice.

It can be theorized 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.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolving relationship between humans and technology within design practice has major creative and moral implications.

The literature reviewed in this article have put forward the notion that humanity 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 great 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. The tendency of these technologies to design only considering data and algorithms produces designs that are purely aesthetic and formal, not considering human design values. Too much decision-making control given to these machines can compromise the essence of design as a uniquely human activity.

Furthermore, the literature argues the notion that technology is an extension of humanity and inherits our qualities. While this can include positive traits, there is grave danger of this technology perpetuating negative human qualities— flaws, biases, inequalities and social injustices—and use these characteristics to form design ideas that go against our human morals and ethics. These technologies cannot understand the deeply nuanced layers of human morals and values, and therefore requires careful human supervision 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 the ability to put forward design solutions at a blinding pace. However, it is important to continue the discussion around the human nature of design into these upcoming technologies to ensure that

we do not forget about humanity’s role in the design process.

Parametric design—along with other developing design technologies—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. We must continue to take human agency over the design process as a tool to explore the fundamental question posed by Colomina and Wigley:

Are We Human?

Word Count: 2501 (Including End Notes)

3. Our tools evolve us as we evolve them. Which of these is truly human?

Image

End Notes

Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley, 2016, Are we Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design (Zürich, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers), 75.

Colomina, 2016, 78.

Colomina, 2016, 127.

Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman, 2012, The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World (Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press).

Daniel Fallman, 2003, ‘Design-Oriented Human-Computer Interaction’, Designing Design 5(1), 225-232.

Ju Hyun Lee and Michael J. Ostwald, 2020, ‘Creative Decision-Making Processes in Parametric Design’, Buildings (Basel) 10(12), 242-261.

Gerd Leonhard, 2016, Technology vs Humanity: The Coming Clash between Man and Machine (London, England: Fast Future Publishing), 10.

Leonhard, 2016, 21.

Matthew Poole, 2015, The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture (London, England: Bloomsbury Academic), 155.

Stella Evangelidou, 2023, ‘Parametric Design in the Historic Urban Domain. The Case of Eleftheria Square by Zaha Hadid Architects’, Architecture Philosophy 6(1/2), 125.

Alberto Pérez Gómez, 2014, ‘Ethics, Emotion, and Aesthetics: Architecture After the Crisis of Modern Science’, Architecture_MPS 4(2), 12.

Colomina, 2016, 78.

Leonhard, 2016, 10.

Poole, 2015, 155.

Nelson, 2012, 6.

Hyun Lee, 2020, 242.

Fallman, 2003, 227.

Alberto Pérez Gómez, 2014, 12.

Evangelidou, 2023, 125.

Bibliography

Primary

Colomina, Beatriz and Mark Wigley. 2016. Are we Human? Notes on an Archaeology of Design. Zürich, Switzerland: Lars Müller Publishers.

Poole, Matthew. 2015. The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture. London, England: Bloomsbury Academic.

Leonhard, Gerd. 2016. Technology vs Humanity: The Coming Clash between Man and Machine. London, England: Fast Future Publishing.

Nelson, Harold G. and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

Secondary

Hyun Lee, Ju and Michael J. Ostwald. 2020. ‘Creative Decision-Making Processes in Parametric Design.’ Buildings (Basel) 10(12): 242-261.

Fallman, Daniel. 2003. ‘DesignOriented Human-Computer Interaction.’ Designing Design 5(1): 225-232.

Evangelidou, Stella. 2023. ‘Parametric Design in the Historic Urban Domain. The Case of Eleftheria Square by Zaha Hadid Architects.’ Architecture Philosophy 6(1/2): 119-138.

Pérez Gómez, Alberto. 2014. ‘Ethics, Emotion, and Aesthetics: Architecture After the Crisis of Modern Science.’ Architecture_MPS 4(2): 1-18.

1 2 3

Image Sources

Cover Image

West Bengal News 24. ‘The Present and Future of Technology Is Artificial Intelligence | West Bengal News 24.’ 2023. https://www.english. westbengalnews24.com/the-presentand-future-of-technology-is-artificialintelligence/.

In Article Franco, José Tomás. ‘Understanding the Human Body: Designing for People of All Shapes and Sizes.’ ArchDaily. 2023. https://www.archdaily.com/903027/ the-importance-of-understanding-thehuman-body-designing-for-people-ofall-shapes-and-sizes.

Iakovos Hatzistavrou. ‘Photograph of Eleftherias Square.’ 2021. https:// commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Eleftherias_Square_5.jpg

Ban, View All Posts by Yuli. ‘Evolution of Automation: A Technist Perspective.’ Radiomonkeys. 2017. https:// radiomonkeys.org/2017/01/20/evolutionof-automation-a-technist-perspective/

Stage 2 Completion Checklist

Adhered to the word limit in the summary and the article.

Inserted the main quote by C+W on the inside of the front cover.

Followed the 5-sentence template in writing of the summary.

Inserted word count of the summary.

Inserted word count of the article.

Adhered to the prescribed number of spreads.

Adhered to the prescribed number of images.

Researched and cited the required number of sources.

Uploaded PDF file on issuu.com and provided active link on the front cover.

Inserted the checklist on the back cover.

Uploaded final PDF file on MyUni and Box.

Uploaded final Black+Blue word file on MyUni and Box.