Kat’s Response to Weiser

Last semester, Sven assigned us all to read a series of essays by Ray Kurzweil and his antagonists. I can’t recall the exact details of Kurzweil’s mind-blowing, complex theories, but I do remember the emotional and psychological impact they had on me. The ability to download our brain onto a database? Computers that entirely surpass human consciousness?

All I kept thinking as I read these texts was, “But what does that say for the future of humans?”

Kurzweil kept popping into my brain as I read the text by Weisner this past week. Although I found Weisner’s predictions and thoughts to be a bit more realistic (and not so scary!), I was still wondering what kind of humans would want to use the computer systems that Weisner was suggesting. When the technology that these men anticipate comes around, will we as a society benefit from it? Even more importantly, will we need it?

Jaqi’s response to Weiser

While I enjoy reading these types of predictive articles, there’s a part of me that can’t get past the over-idealistic tones these stories are often written in. I am sure that the point is to be awe-inspiring, but sometimes I go away with the feeling that considering such articles are written by masters of their respective fields, it may not be all that difficult to look into the crystal ball and project distant advancements.

At face value he has correctly predicted some things such as Google Wave, the iPad and social networking. But he also claims in this distant future that printed newspapers are going strong and that interactive computer screens would be as useful as white boards. To juxtapose a white board as more useful (or at least equal to usefulness) than a futuristic interactive device just screams oversight. Still, I commend the authors terminology as I found the use of the word “widget” quite delightful to find hidden in this text from the distant 80s.

Big Brother is getting Weiser…

Okay, so I became carried away with titling this post.  However, I was slightly taken aback when I heard the term, “ubiquitous”.   “Ubiquitous”, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, means, “existing or being everywhere at the same time: constantly encountered”.  Basically to me “ubiquitous” is synonymous of “omnipresent”, and a “bombardment of the senses”.

I am not questioning whether technology can be fully implemented into our society as something as “ubiquitous” as the written word. It simply cannot. Weiser talks about how the integration of such learning is primarily psychological.  Human psychology.  He brings up Heidegger (among others) and his neologism “ready-to-hand” which interested me greatly.  I need to digress before getting into this.

The special thing about the birth of communication (for lack of a better term) is that it was oral/gestural.  It took the (visible) simultaneous presence of two individuals in order for a message to become relayed.  If Caveman A groaned and Caveman B was not there to listen, then nothing would really happen.

Since then, we have moved on to physical means of communication: paper and pencil.  We were able to voice our thoughts through another form, one where both people did not have to be present simultaneously in order for the message to be received.  Lover A could pen his wooings to Lover B, mail the letter, and then later Lover B could receive that letter without Lover A present and the ideas would still be portrayed.

There is always the question of how a physical letter is different than an email.  I won’t get into this argument, because besides aesthetic differences there are several.  However, the fact is that older methods of communication were extremely physical and natural.   Therefore, we as human beings defined ourselves in this way.  Because what was closest to us, what we knew about the world was physical and intimate, we as  human beings had a completely different attachment to the physical world and relationships compared to the present (arguably).   If we go back to Weiser’s idea of human psychology and Heidegger, the problem with the ideas that Weiser writes about (ubiquitous) is the whole disappearing part.  In order to accept computers fully and ubiquitously into our lives, we have to forget about traditional means of communication.  We have to forget about writing letters, walking to office cubicles to say hi to our neighbors, or checking to see if the coffee is ready.   Ultimately, we have to redefine who we are as people and what it means to be human.

The whole point of ready-to-hand is that Being can only be understood through what is closest to us.  If that thing is technology and machines, what will that say about us?

Jeanna’s response to Weiser Reading

Weiser’s futuristic world of  ubiquitous computers reminded me of another reading I had last semester by Alan Kay called, “The Computer Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet”. Similar to Weiser’s argument, Kay states that only when computers have ceased to become computers, and have assumed an invisible presence within our daily lives, similar to the presence and comprehension with type and language, only then has the computer revolution really happened. He also suggests that a higher prevalence and depreciation of the monetary value of technology will have to occur for us to reach the revolution. Kay used a metaphor that really stuck with me. He argued that only our computers can accidently fall into a pool, and we see this as a minor everyday inconvenience instead of a devastation have we reached the 21st century computer revolution.

Weiser has a different view of the future that no longer involves personal computers, but a life-style that is surrounded by, but not corralled by the presence of computers. Hundreds of computers within the same room, independent of OS or incompatible applications, working seamlessly to aid our interpersonal communication. Appropriate timing with the release of the ipad yesterday! I had really never realized how much we mold our bodies to fit the laptops or desktops that we use. Will the ipad really revolutionize how we use computers? Or is it just a glorified iphone? I also thought that the parallel between virtual reality and how we use computers today was very interesting. Weiser says, “Virtual reality focuses an enormous apparatus on simulating the world rather than on invisibly enhancing the world that already exists.” The premise of virtual reality has always excited us, but what good is a virtual world if you can’t share it?

Weiser’s long-winded description of pads, tabs and boards kind of bored me, (or at least brought back memories of Tom Cruise in Minority Report). However, his day in the life of Sal helped me visualize just how different a world with truly ubiquitous computing will be, and the implications of communication in that world.

Basak’s response to Weiser reading

The reading was very amazing especially when we see that Weiser wrote it 20 years ago! Actually it was like a definition of our current time. We are living an era of fast data transfers, information gatherings and flows and mostly sharing everything we have with everyone around.

While I was reading I was scared at some points. Weiser points out that we are surrounded by data wherever we go like in science fiction movies which made me think that “there wont be any escape or any hidden spot to run away from technology!”.

Another disturbing point was also being tracked (maybe stalked) by the technology in an invisible way. It is like you dont see them but they are always there ready to load you with data or sharings. And also what is gonna happen to the security of our data when it is so out there?

Another reason why I enjoyed the reading was that the Weiser’s predictions about the future are so well targeted that all the things he was talking about like pads, tabs or boards or virtual realities are so in our lives right now.(also it is like a joke that IPad has been announced just two days before we read this..) But basically I really agree that ubiquitous computing will be the word of our era. Since we are even too lazy to carry ourselves, we want our devices to follow us wherever we go, instead of carrying them. But of course it is another concern of mine that while the machines and devices are getting smarter , we are getting more stupid everyday since we have our devices to do whatever we want instead of ourselves.

Weiser’s Vision: response -haeyoung

It’s always fascinating to see what technology futurists talk about the implementation of technology in up coming generations. It seems that Weiser’s prediction 20 years ago on ubiquitous computer was right on target as we experience the popularity of smart phones and introduction of iPad. The researchers from Xerox have experimented with various possibilities for a computer to be adopted and integrated into our daily lives. However, I believe this would cause serious moral and privacy issues even more than Weiser’s concerns. Advancement of technology and integration of ubiquitous computer provide benefit to our lives. However, I also doubt that over usage of ubiquitous computer technology would increase the efficiency and productivity of human lives.

Chris Choi’s response to the Weiser reading

I enjoyed Weiser’s article on how computers and technology in general are and have been heading in a more ubiquitous direction. The article was written almost 20 years ago, and since then many of the notions that Weiser talks about have become realities. The scenario Weiser describes where Sal “waves” a document at her co-worker and joint assignment partner, Joe is particularly interesting to me because of the new technological development, googlewave.  Google is trying to implement a new term called “waving” where participants communicate to each other using “waves.” When Weiser is describing his tabs, pads and boards, I couldn’t help but remember movies as of late that are trying to introduce directors’ or writers’ visions of new technologies that are very real possibilities.  Minority Report, Iron Man and Avatar are a few that illustrate Weiser’s ideas of shrinking or minimizing windows from a main display onto a more portable display that can physically be moved, say from room to room.

Weiser describes a scenario where a woman suddenly cannot remember the store where she saw a dress but because of advancement in technology, the information needed is retroactively found. This could indeed be a remarkable feat in technological advancement but is a potential danger in promoting laziness and bypassing active thinking for example.  The heavy reliance on technology is something to be considered as we steadily continue to save only digital files, use phones that store every ounce of personal information, etc. I remember that before the advent of cell phones, I could memorize phone numbers, addresses and things of that nature. However, now, I am so used to just saving a number in my address book and just scrolling to whoever’s name I want to dial and press a button. If I was to lose my phone, I would be shi* out of luck. What happens when the only files we have are digital and are accidentally erased? If and when that time comes, will we even remember to think on our own?

Older and Weiser

Despite some cringe-worthy moments in Weiser’s piece about the prevalence of computing devices in mainstream society, the piece was well-crafted and his opinions prove to have longevity. Considering that I was four when he wrote this, the guy got a bunch of things right.

One thing he got dangerously wrong, however, is the idea that we are going to be inventing new technologies to replace the old. Rather, we have seen that it is more human to adapt and evolve existing technologies into converging systems of use. Much the way that I use the iPhone/Android/Blackberry as a email/chat/internet/gaming/music device – so shall we continue to use technologies in the future. Soon enough we will be bumping files wirelessly from one device to the next, and cloud computing will be backing it all up for us. But i’ll reserve my predictions so that Future Garrett (you look good, by the way, the gray is really working on you) doesn’t look back at this and cringe.

George’s reaction to Weiser reading

Most of Mark Weiser’s predictions about the inevitability of ubiquitous computing struck me as being completely realistic, but his reasoning for why this technology would be developed and the impact it would have seemed overly optimistic. One can argue that computing has done much to improve our lives, especially in the areas of science and health, but the scenario he describes of how computing will enhance  the experience of waking and going to the office left me asking- why would we really want that? Presumably, our interest in advanced technologies is rooted at least in part in the belief that it will free us from banal and time consuming activities, such as remembering where our shopping list is and paying bills, and free us up to enjoy things we like to do. However, most research and advancements seem driven by the desire to increase productivity- possibly because computing is better equipped to increase our work output, than it is to enhance our leisure time. His last sentence, in which he states “Machines that fit the human environment instead of forcing humans to enter theirs will make using a computer as refreshing as taking a walk in the woods” indicates to me that he may be missing the point of why taking a walk in the woods is refreshing to begin with.
I think embedded sensing technology has great creative potential and may allow us to have new ways of understanding and relating to our environments. However, at least at this point I’ve seen little proof that it will make daily routines more enjoyable. I’m afraid that thinking in this direction is overly fixated on ironing out the wrinkles which make life interesting and unpredictable. From a usability standpoint, Mr. Weiser and his team seemed to be developing interesting interfaces, but at least in this article, his vision for their potentials did not peak my interest.

greg’s reaction to Weiser reading

The ubiquitous computing essay by Mark Weiser was fascinating because of when it was written.  The entire concept of ubiquitous computing seems to revolve around the idea that things should be easier and things should be faster.  I found a lot of what he said to be cringe inducing because I find great value in things taking time and things being difficult.  Knowledge we work for is knowledge we value.   If we know a task will require great effort then we value the accomplishment more.  There is a lot more respect earned with climbing Mount Everest than with walking to the top of a hill.  What have we done if we give everyone a personal helicopter that’s programmed to automatically take them to the top of Everest?

The insight into the future that struck me as the most impressive was the idea of people deleting their biographies at the end of meetings.  While its one thing for a tech nerd to imagine a future world with slick technology, its another to imagine a world in which people react poorly to it.  I find so much technology repulsive (social networking is vile, discussions of Facebook causes me taste a bit of puke in the back of my throat) and as he was describing this future I was thinking how little I want to be a part of it.

Then when he turned it around and mentioned that so often people would not want to be a part of it I realized he was not a science fiction writer but rather a man who truly was thinking about how ubiquitous computers would unfold and be adapted (or reacted against).

This clarity on his part made me reevaluate his writing.  While I disagree with so much of what he wants I also started to look at with less anger.  The ideals he is after, a future in which computers are a background for us in the same way writing is, is fascinating and one that I support.  I started trying to think of modern examples of both the good and bad of his world and the iphone immediately came to mind. Its his badge.

In some ways they are amazing (shazam for the iphone…instant information that might be hard to get at times, this is similar to his “who’s the designer of this dress” example) and in other ways its mistaking the fact that human interactions take time for a waste of time (bump app for iphones:  its smarmier than networking aficionados handing you their card at a party.)

I’m on the fence about his future being a great one.  I suppose a lot of it has to do with my love for privacy and my ingrained distain for marketing.  I know that my iPhone sends tons of information to marketers every day.  I have ads scroll across the bottom on various apps and its constantly asking if apps can know my location.  My google account knows more about me than some of my closest friends and that information is for sale.  I am left asking if this ubiquitous computing future is worth the price of entry.