Turkle

Digital connection and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Our networked life allows us to hide from each other even as we are thetered to each other. (1) Essentially, using social media to mediate our lives allows us (or perhaps even causes us?) to distance ourselves from each other. A cyclical problem is created, we are busy so we need social media to give us time, yet we have no time because we are always using social media.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100336140

(the urge to self disclose) In a world of hyper-connected-ness is it possible that people feel that they cannot communicate with one another? Is this where robots come in? Where people feel compelled to self-disclose and the only thing that will “sit still” long enough to have a conversation is a robot.

The issue of how accepting we are of this.

we are inherently wired to find patterns in things. Computers are increasingly able to respond to what we say in “life-like” ways. While the robots do not “know” they seem pretty good at being able to “figure out”

Turkle asks what causes an object to be alive? Is it movement? Is it the fact that we can project our feelings onto the robot. Nexi, is blindfolded, why is she blindfolded, can “she” “see”? I tend to lean towards the perspective that people can attribute their values to most anything, especially things with life-like forms.

The separation between machine and living being is best muddled in the statement “It’s a mechanism but alive enough to die” (43). With this it seems clear that there are some ethical considerations to keep in mind given that the baby can “die”. Turkle brings this around in describing a graduate students test to see how long people could stand to hang animals upside down.

As the first several chapters progress we move from devices that are more simple and somewhat abstract in shape to more life like (Cog and Kismet). Appropriately, it seems that these devices stop being toys, but begin to “have” toys. I’m intrigued that the difference in use by young people isn’t greater between the furby and kismet. I suppose I shouldnt be terribly shocked because they are both things that are easily anthropomorphized.

Later in the chapters Turkle begins discussing the interchange between devices as perceived by young people, to the reception of the same devices (paro) by elderly people. I was intrigued that young people put so much of themselves into the robots that they felt that they would be jealous if the robots were given to their grand parents.

The nature of a robots ability to care intrigues me. Turkle mentions that some young people are thrilled with the idea of a robot babysitter who will, perhaps unlike their teenage human equivalents, will pay more attention to the child. As we begin to discuss with the notions of using robots for eldercare, I am somehow more concerned about the use of robots. Perhaps, to me it seems right that children should have an imagination and to anthropomorphize things. But, it is somewhat disconcerting to me that older people would need to revert to that kind of care. It would put me into great thought to consider my parents being cared for by robots.

The case study of the elderly man Jonathon, who seeks to dismantle a My Real Baby at the very begining is interesting to me. It seems that perhaps the elderly are more interested in how and why rather than just accepting that it just is? She goes on to describe how Jonathon describes the childs programming, but several months later he does not mention the programming. This is not so different than the body of text near the begining where the meeting of young people and Furbies are described. The young people ask if it is real or a robot over and over again, but they quickly decide that it is “life like enough” to be cared for.

I’m also intrigued by why people cover for the machines when they dont function properly. The children often ascribe problems to illness whereas Rich who interacts with Kismet actively seeks to portray Kismet in “its” best light. The Eliza effect, whereby people cover for the robot when it acts in a why that is not perhaps desired is very interesting. I’m intrigued by how this could be used in an educational settting (question).

Otherwise, I really enjoyed these readings. I cannot in my brain separate these from the writings of Jenkins. It seems that Jenkins so perfectly set up this book. Whereas I read a fierce optomism in his work (which is justified), I see an equal caution in Turkle’s work. I think I prefer Turkle’s work because of the critical and foundational questions that are asked.

What is Life?

Most of these are questions that perhaps have no right or wrong answer, but it is very interesting to ask the questions.


Questions: What causes a mechanism to be alive?

What are possible implications of the ELIZA effect?