Comine, a deeper look
Reflection of Critique
The feedback clarified a variety of thoughts and concerns. When thinking about Comine, the idea stem from the relationship the user has with a device. In order for any device to work it must have some form of human input. The amount of input varies in a wide spectrum, but any device works together (prefix co-) with the data the human supplies( root -mine). Distinguishing these roles allows the user to reinterpret their interaction with the technology, so the concept builds a sense of ownership; this outlook builds meaning.
In the case of this project the direction we took was to design a personal assistant for designers, in this case a graphic designer, to service the designer in their design process. One point of criticism was why a graphic designer, since the role falls in the middle of task designers need to complete for certain designs. I agree with this point and the observation does help aid in narrowing down the specificity. Another point was to test a scenario, try to see how to explain the technology with the user. This observation leaps into the considerations of the next phase. User input is very important because receiving data will improve the design and use of the device.
As a continuation of this observation, one of the critics asked to distinguished if it was an art director or a graphic designer since the roles are different. Ideally, the AI is creating clues for the designer to improve their design process. These suggestions recommended by the AI are proposals based on what it received from you the designer. One possible direction is to have a clip with sensors and blue-tooth that keeps up on your surroundings and has a mic so you can tell it what to store, and accordingly the AI will have unsupervised learning to create paths from the patterns of data you inserted for you to have a better sense of where to end and continue the design exploration.
One of the fears brought up in the presentation was if AI will take over a designers job. I strongly do not believe so, not in the next 40 years, at least. Because the way a designer thinks is different from the way a non-designer thinks. The designer eye is trained on considering design elements/principals, in other words, the AI does the cookie cutter work that an average person can do, where as a designer will still be needed to provide the signature. One last critic I will like to point was to discuss the reasoning of the process. I agree and I am glad it this was noticed because the narrative of the system can certainly be better explained. A possibility could be involving the audience by interacting in an activity.
All in all, I genuinely do not disagree with any of the points, it felt satisfying to receive the input because they were itchy concerns that were unclear before, now based on the critique I have a stronger sense for navigating towards manifesting the intentions in a new form. This form could be making the user wonder if they are merely a computer; in my opinion, we are computers, I do not have a deep understanding of the technical neuroscience, but I know our brains are models for the computer we use. So solving “why”, “what”, and “how” to manifest AI for the use of non-stakeholders is reinterpreting the use (in a micro/macro scale) of machines, specifically establishing a new relationship to computers in everyday life.
