Welcome to this weeknotes, which are slightly different from the usual. Due to a busy schedule, they’re being published a day later than usual. Despite the delay, time remains tight, so I also keep a bit shorter. While I haven’t had much time for deep reflection and thought, I did participate in a session with students from the “Minor Interacting Environments” program at TU Delft. This experience provided some thoughts to share. Before diving into that, let me give you a brief overview of the week ahead: The main focus remains research into civic protocol economies.
And the ThingsCon preparations are consuming significant time and energy, with the event just 2.5 weeks away. Please check out the program and consider purchasing a ticket to join us. I’m also working on the Wijkbot project methodology, which needs to be completed by year-end. So busy as always plus a bit extra, but filled with exciting projects.
Triggered Thought
Now, let’s delve into some thoughts sparked by the student session. The topic revolves around our relationship with new, intelligent, autonomous, and generative objects or entities. The minor program focuses on designing and conceptualizing interactive environments, exploring their impact on people’s lives.
One of the commissioners for student assignments is Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. They’re interested in exploring new functions for the airport during periods of reduced flight activity, envisioning it as a space that combines work and shopping in innovative ways. During the session I attended on Tuesday, we discussed smart objects. Students had prepared an exercise inviting participants to take positions on various aspects of smart objects, such as whether they make us smarter or dumber, and what defines a smart object.
This exercise prompted me to revisit my own definitions and research on predictive relations from 2018-2019. At that time, I made a clear distinction between smart objects and intelligent agents:
- Smart Objects: These are adaptive and responsive to their environment but follow pre-programmed rules. Examples include vacuum robots and programmable thermostats.
- Intelligent Objects: These are capable of creating their own strategies by combining different types of information and insights. They don’t have agency or consciousness but can adapt more flexibly than smart objects.
- Things with Agency: These not only have intelligence but also make their own decisions and valuations. They learn from their actions and can even initiate interactions with humans.
What struck me during the student session was how their definition of smart objects aligned more closely with what I previously categorized as “things with agency.” This shift in perception suggests an evolution in how we conceptualize smart technology.
The students’ view of smart objects as having agency and intelligence reflects a changing understanding of what “smart” means in our society. It raises questions about the future roles of these objects in our lives and how we’ll interact with them. This evolution in perception also prompts us to consider what the next level of intelligence or agency might look like beyond what we now consider “smart.” Will it be something even more human-like, or will it develop in entirely new directions? These are fascinating questions to ponder as we continue to explore the rapidly evolving landscape of smart and intelligent technologies.
Read the full newsletter here, with
- Notions from last week’s news on Human-AI partnerships, Robotic performances, Immersive connectedness, and Tech societies
- Paper for the week
- Looking forward with events to visit
target is new 