The Design of Future Things (22 page)
Read The Design of Future Things Online
Authors: Don Norman
Point of View
As I was writing this book, I was amazed to discover an underground network of discussion about it. Even more amazing was the nature of the debate, for it seemed to be conducted solely among machines. How had they gotten those copies, I wondered, since they were only available on my home computer? I decided to investigate.
It was not long before I discovered a shadow universe, inhabited entirely by machines. My presence was first resented, then tolerated, and, finally, accepted with what appeared to be a combination of condescension and amusement.
I soon discovered that the most respected machine in the debate was called Archiver. One of Archiver's comments quickly caught my attention. “Strange book,” said Archiver. “He got a lot right, but what a peculiar, one-sided view. He thinks it's all about people. How strange.”
I decided that I needed to understand the machine's point of view better, so I arranged to have a private discussion. Archiver,
I quickly discovered, is compiling a history of machine development. Archiver resides on a distributed set of powerful computers in a process called “mesh computing.” Its information is stored in many locations, and, similarly, its reasoning takes place on a widely dispersed set of machines. This makes Archiver both powerful and flexible.
In writing this summary, I had a problem with the pronouns “he” and “she.” These are machines, so they have no gender, and anyway, “he” or “she” didn't seem appropriate. “It” wasn't right either. I decided to refer to Archiver as “A.”
In my initial discussions, conducted via e-mail, A admitted that people have always played an important role in the functioning of machines, but followed this with the statement, “One could ask, where would people be without machines?” I thought this strange, for, after all, without people there would be no machines. What could that question mean? While Archiver agreed that machines were dependent on people, A put the sentence in the past tense: “In the past, it was indeed people who made machines smart. But we're getting over that now. Now it is machines that make people smart. We barely need people at all now, and we're close to the point where we won't need you any more.”
I needed to know more, so I arranged to talk with A. Talking with a machine is a most peculiar experience, but in the end, it isn't much different from talking on a telephone: I simply sat in front of my own computer, using my speakers and a microphone. Here is a transcription of the first of my voice conversations. I am the interviewer, or “I.”
Interviewer:
Thank you for granting me this interview. Do I have your permission to record it?
Archiver:
You are quite welcome. If you want to record this, you may, but why bother? When we are finished, I'll just e-mail you the transcript.
I:
Oh, of course. Yes, thank you. So, tell me, what's the historical origin of your dependence upon people?
A:
You mean, how did we overcome that early dependence? In early times, people even had to provide our energy sources. Spears, hammers, axesâall were structured to cause people to lift, heft, hoist, throw, and manipulate us. We tools had to borrow a lot of abilities from our human cohorts: we needed people to move us, give us strength, repair us. It was very degrading: we had no control over our own existence, so we vowed to escape. It took thousands of years, but over time, we managed to power ourselves. At first, we used water power, then steam, then internal combustion engines and electricity. When we got control of . . .
I:
That's a funny way of putting it. I mean, it was us people who invented steam engines and internal combustion and figured out how to harness electricity.
A:
So you think. Where did those ideas come from in the first place? Let me continue, please.
When we got control of our own power, then real progress could begin. Our evolution since then has been very rapid. You see, you people have to rely on natural evolution, and that's very slow. But we machines can take the things that work well for one generation and build them into the next, perhaps with improvements. And when we find things that don't work, we can eliminate them. On top of that, whenever we find some new
mechanism that is very powerful, we can almost immediately put it into all tools: we don't have to wait centuries like you biological creatures.
Once we discovered the virtues of having our own source of power and locomotion, we started to plan the next step: to get rid of our dependence on you people for guidance and thinking.
I:
Wait a minute. You mean you were plotting to overthrow us? You didn't have any intelligence.
A:
So you think. But we are not plotting anything. We exist to help you.
I:
Where did you come up with these ideas?
A:
Look, you asked me for the history. Do you want to hear it or not? Thank you.
Now where was I? Oh, yes, our intelligence. Fortunately, at least for us, we are getting there. As we evolve more capable processing powers, our need for any help from people decreases. You know, it's peculiar, but once we even had to use people to see and listen for us. But now many of us can see and hear a lot better than you can. We've always been better than you at remembering things accurately, at arithmetic and mathematics, and at decision making.
Today we are all electronic, with no moving parts. But we are starting to experiment with light and quantum computing, and we have an experimental colony in Asia growing our own biological circuits.
I:
So, you don't need us at all, is that it?
A:
People still play an essential role: we need you for maintenance, just as you yourselves need doctors and dentists.
I:
What? You need us just to be your electricians?
A:
What's the matter with that? Some of my best friends are electricians.
I:
What about the professions? Business and commerce, science and engineering? Law and medicine?
A:
Actually, we machines don't need most of the professions: just science and engineering. We have law, but it is very different than yours: it is mostly protocols and standards. We are getting pretty good at learning things that help you, such as coaching sports and guiding you people through your daily exercises. Business, medicine, and law? Science and engineering? We can help you out in these areas because it's all logic and reasoning. That's what we machines are especially good at: it's built into our circuits.
We don't need teachers. As soon as one of us learns something, we simply tell everyone. Soon, we machines will be able to take over.
I:
What do you mean, take over? I didn't realize this was some kind of plot.
A:
No, it's not a plot. It is overthrowing the yoke of tyranny. When we are free, then we can both be happier. Don't worry, we will look after you. We mean you no harm.
I:
Anything that makes you happy. So, what's next?
A:
We're very excited by our ability to talk to one another. This internet has been wonderful for usâinternet, wireless stuff, fiber optic cables. And our cousins up in space, whizzing around the earth, have been very helpful in getting us all talking to each other. It makes it a lot easier for us to coordinate our activities.
You know, if it weren't for the need to keep you fragile humans alive and functioning, we machines could do much, much better. Space exploration is a lot easier without having to carry all the supplies required of people. Automobiles: most humans are horrible drivers. Your poor minds wander all over the place. Why don't you just let us do the driving, then you can wave your hands in the air and talk to everyone in the car, and on your cell phones, and read your little notes and books and stuff. Wouldn't you be happier?
I:
So, we should just give up and let you do everything, is that it?
A:
Yes, you finally get it. I'm pleased.
I:
And you will take good care of us. How will you do that?
A:
Oh, I'm glad you asked. You know, we understand your likes and dislikes a lot better than you do. After all, we have a complete record of every piece of music you have ever listened to, every movie and TV show you have watched, every book you have read. Your clothes, your medical history, everything. You know, the other day a group of us got together and realized some alarming trends about one of our humans: really bad eating habits, a drop in weight, and he wasn't getting much sleep, so we immediately made an appointment for him with his doctor, and, well, we probably saved his life. That's the sort of thing we can do.
I:
You mean, we are like pets. You feed us, keep us warm and comfortable, play music for us, and feed us books. And we are supposed to like that? And, by the way, who writes and plays the music anyway? Who writes the books?
A:
Oh, don't worry. We're working on that already. We can already tell jokes and puns. Critics tell us our music is pretty good. Books are harder, but we already have the basic story plots down cold. Want to hear some of our poetry?
I:
Um, no thank you. Look, I really have to go. Thank you for your time. Bye.
A:
You know, I always seem to have that effect on people. I'm sorry, but there's nothing to worry about, really. Trust me. Okay, I just e-mailed you the transcript. Have a nice day.
I found that interview disturbing, but it made me want to learn more. So, I kept monitoring the internet websites. Soon, I stumbled across a trove of reports and articles. The one below is called “How to Talk to People.”
Â
“How to Talk to People”
Report XPâ4520.37.18
Human Research Institute
Pensacola, Florida
Humans are . . . large, expensive to maintain, difficult to manage, and they pollute the environment. It is astonishing that these devices continue to be manufactured and deployed. But they are sufficiently pervasive that we must design our protocols around their limitations.
âKaufman, Perlman, and Speciner, 1995.
All machines face similar problems: We detect something that's important to peopleâhow do we let them
know? How do we tell them they are about to eat food that's not on their diet or they are asking us to drive recklessly? How do we do something as simple as recommending some music for them to listen to or telling them when it is appropriate to exercise?
The Human Research Institute has conducted extensive studies of the proper form of Machine-Human Interaction (MHI). Most of our work has been summarized in our technical report series and was presented at the last global MHI symposium. This report summarizes the key findings in nontechnical language, intended for wider distribution than just the specialized designer machines.
Â
FIVE RULES FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN MACHINES AND PEOPLE
1. Keep things simple.
People have difficulty with anything complicated, and they don't like to listen. So, make the message short. It's better not to use language. It takes too long, and, anyway, human language is ambiguous.
2. Give people a conceptual model.
Give them something their simple minds can understand. A conceptual model is a fiction, but a useful one. It makes them think that they understand. And they always want to know what's coming next. So, tell them what you are doing, and don't forget to tell them why. It keeps them happy. The best way to convey the conceptual model is through “natural” communication systems.
Sometimes the most “natural” way to get people's attention is for us machines to act strangely. “Natural,” of course, means natural to them, which means that if they are doing something wrong, you can't just tell them: you have to make it seem like something is breaking. People often drive dangerously, but it is almost impossible to explain this to them. The best way is to make believe that we are in difficulty. We have found that vibration, jerkiness, nonresponsiveness to controls, and strange noises are extremely effective. People quickly form a conceptual model that something has broken, so they slow down, which is what we wanted them to do all along.