This afternoon, the first session of my seminar at Technische Universität Dortmund will take place!
The title of the seminar is “Wenn Technologien ausgrenzen. Mensch-Technologie-Interaktionen ethnographisch erforschen” [When technologies exclude. Conducting ethnographic research on human-technology interactions], and there are two main things I would like the students to take away from it:
The first one is that access to technologies is not equally distributed, but that people have an unequal share in the advantages and disadvantages of technologies based on their intersecting personal characteristics. Social inequalities influence digital inequalities, which in turn reinforce social inequalities. At the same time, technologies can be incredibly helpful in providing access for people experiencing disadvantages, such as in the case of assistive technologies.
The second key take-away is an understanding of ethnographic methods which we will approach both theoretically and through practical exercises. One of the planned activities I am currently most excited about is a research exercise in which students will explore their own privileges and constraints in their use of a specific technology. I cannot wait to try it out with them, and might even write a little separate blog post on it!
It has been a bit more than two weeks since I attended the conference “Imaginations of Autonomy: On Humans, AI-based Weapon Systems and Responsibility at Machine Speed” at Paderborn University. In my last blog post, I shared some insights inspired by the pre-conference workshop presentations. Today, I want to explore another topic that recurred throughout the two days of the conference: temporality, or the various concepts of time in technology development.
The concept of “machine speed,” which is also featured in the conference’s title, implies a different time concept for machines that contrasts with that of, for example, humans. I see two main aspects to which this can refer. First, how machines outperform humans in calculations and processing power. The idea of machines being faster and more accurate than humans underlies, for example, the so-called “man vs. machine matches.” Second, that the speed of technology development rapidly increases over time, seemingly without human influence, and not necessarily in humanity’s best interest. Moore’s Law, for example, is often quoted as an argument for this position. In this line of thought, humans are perceived as too slow and inflexible to adapt to the ever-changing machinic state-of-the-art.
Another well-known reference to time perception in technology development is Mark Zuckerberg’s famous mantra, “Move fast and break things,” which has become emblematic of Silicon Valley. This phrase encapsulates a mindset where the primary goal of technology development is to outpace competitors, often at the expense of user interests. The logic suggests that any negative consequences can be addressed later. There are, however, other ideals in technology development that contrast this approach, such as slow technology.
Particularly in areas like autonomous weapon systems, it is crucial for civil society to monitor current development practices closely. As I discussed in my last blog post, concepts materialize in software. Similarly, concepts of time in technology development can shape political and military decision-makers’ sense of urgency about acquiring autonomous weapon systems, potentially accelerating their development.
The UN’s first resolution on autonomous weapon systems, dated October 12, 2023, underscores the need for an international approach to address challenges and concerns raised by these technologies. How can we, as civil society, encourage such an international approach in humanity’s best interest? How can we engage in productive debates about autonomous weapon systems and potentially influence their development to proceed slowly and responsibly, or maybe even stop altogether, rather than advance at machine speed?
In the context of soccer-playing robots, technological advances in robotics and artificial intelligence are mostly perceived as exciting and fun. Whenever I tell people about my research project, they tend to be very curious to learn more about the state of the technology. How well can the robots play soccer? Do they use artificial intelligence? How do they make decisions? And are they going to win the match against humans in 2050?
When it comes to robot soccer, many people perceive the use of the latest technology to allow robots to score more goals - or get fewer time penalties - as desirable. However, similar technological approaches in fields such as object detection or data- and calculation-based decision-making are also used in highly destructive ways.
I am currently attending the conference “Imaginations of Autonomy: On Humans, AI-based Weapon Systems and Responsibility at Machine Speed” at Paderborn University, organized in the context of the competence network “Meaningful Human Control”.
On the first day of the event, during the pre-conference workshop, I learned a lot about the global use of autonomous weapon systems, their geopolitical relevance, and the power structures they reproduce. In this blog post, I want to discuss one aspect in greater detail and relate it to my research, namely that concepts materialize in technologies.
One of the concepts discussed most extensively in the pre-conference workshop was “autonomy.” Similarly to other concepts often drawn upon in technology development – intelligence, curiosity, companionship, etc. – “autonomy” can be conceptualized in different ways. Different conceptualizations can, in turn, lead to various implementations.
In my research, for example, the ambivalence of this concept came up in a discussion about how strongly individual soccer robots should rely on communication with other robots to make their decisions. Should the software aim at gaining a sufficient understanding of the surroundings in each individual robot, or should it aim at using the information gathered by the sensors of all of the team’s robots? It is also worth discussing how the role of humans is conceptualized in robot autonomy. While during a robot soccer game, the rules of the game (which were set by humans) only allow for limited human intervention, the robots could never play soccer without quite a lot of preparatory work by humans.
The influence of concepts should thus not be overlooked in the ethical design of technologies. Discussing and critically scrutinizing the concepts used as guiding principles in technology development, particularly the ones whose meaning is often taken for granted, can help us better understand the technologies that have already started to shape our lives in numerous ways.
