1966 Life Magazine

“A machine is only as good as it’s user”

A phrase that concludes the first paragraph of this piece of literature. This text states in a very simple methodology, how the layers of learning for a “smart machine” can develop. It is through learning patterns and problem solving, a selective hierarchy of process makes a machine intelligent.

The Evolutionary Machine:

Simply, machines that can learn to learn. A dialogue between the architect and the machine, in which the machine does the “tedious tasks” or “heavy lifting” that seem unimportant or hindering to the architect. Therefore, giving the architect the space to create and do what he loves. Consequently, this raises the following issue: If a machine can collect it’s own information or urban data, can it hence deduce the outcome of said environmental aspects that correlate with the architect’s design and therefore implement accordingly?

The Learning Machine:

By setting the design criteria, a machine can deduce a number of legitimate conclusions based from a finite set of scenarios. However, this needs to develop in a reasonable amount of time. In this case, the author concludes a set of 5 aspects that should form the corner stone of the architecture machine.

1.  A Heuristic Mechanism: Is having the basic  set of “rules of thumb” which limits the time to search for solutions and in turn memorise certain contexts of problems.
2. A Rote Apparatus: It is the “storage of obstacles” where the machine associates problems with responses which nowadays we recognise as “Errors” .
3. A Conditioning Mechanism: When these formulated responses become habits, this acts as a “reflex action”, a predefined response with minimal effort.
4. A Reward Selector: Where the machine starts defining the architects favourite actions. This case is only applicable if the architect feeds his positive and or negative feed back is a “good and bad” actions.
5. Unlearning: Every machine needs a “delete” button. Simply because undesirable actions need to be forgotten in order to build on the architect’s defined correct design.

For every machine, there should be a designer or user, it’s local memory and computing power. Accordingly, all other architecture machines should be interconnected to a parent machine that is the highest point in the hierarchy of information. This creates a web of information and communication and feeds computing power to all the architecture machines.

The Seeing Machine:

” The Interface”- The communicating language between the machine and the user. Be it visual, audible, brain waves. This language needs to be understandable by both the user and the machine. Visual communication has proven to be most efficient. This concept, at the time of publishing this text, seemed absurd to most, yet nowadays it is almost natural to have a proper communicating relationship with intelligent machines.

Interest:

What makes this text interesting is that it is so ahead of it’s time. The author leaped into the future in such a precise manner that makes it completely understandable and applicable at this point in time. This kind of revolutionary thinking and advanced foresight concerning architecture and machines is a sought after skill that needs to dissected and researched. If this method of thought becomes a method of teaching for architects, it will revolutionize design as we know it today into a more sustainable future.

“The important thing is not to stop questioning “ Albert Einstein

Text_Toward a Theory of Architecture Machines_Nicholas Negroponte

 In text Toward a Theory of Architecture Machines, Nicholas Negroponte discuss about advantages of self developing machines, relation between human and artificial, identifying the interaction of humans and evolutionary techniques. Evolutionary system is result of both, the man and the machine. Discussion is about machines that as he said, “can learn about architecture” and man with his knowledge is that those who can make machine to be smart. The development of information systems and computer graphics are services that enable the designer to expand their ideas and allow him more time to do what you really love. Its some kind of artificial love.

The author mentions five mechanisms that are important for achieving artificial intelligence. First is heuristic method based on rules of thumb or strategy which drastically limits the resolution of the problem. This method does not guarantee a solution. Machine will attempt to apply the relevant procedures with a similar problem. Heuristic gained from analogous situations would be the machine’s first source of contribution to the solution of a new problem.
After repeating meeting rote apparatus such control. It is important to learn to mind an event and its store. If the situation occurred repeatedly mechanism retains the circumstances to use it for similar situations. Response time and repetition become habits, good or bad.
Conditioning mechanism to process all non exceptional information. In addition to learning by heart responds to all events, generates the problem. Each robot is developing its conditioned reflex. Reward sector initiates activities. Implies testing each environment without the knowledge of the designer. This mechanism is crucial for good or bad architecture.
The last method is the inability or ability (forgetting convenience) of computers to forget all that we have entered into it. An example of as we take the antiquated structures, techniques, materials that do not correspond to the time or the environment in which we find ourselves.

Beside this mechanism mentioned Negroponte said those sea-discriminating mechanism or the interface. In fact, he’s talking about a machine that communicates with ambience and takes on the role of designers. These machines have features designers are necessary three characteristics: an event, a manifestation and representation. These three properties form the interface.
The author expresses his views and vision of the future machines – seeing machine. The machine is almost identified with the designer or architect. Architecture is a machine. The machine works on the principle of observation, environment, talks between architect and client. The device registers an event, plans, conversation enters the data in preparation for the final answer. Architecture Machine acquire information which client given era and therefore would have the potential to challenge and to question.
It all recognize it has seen and than extrapolates characteristics: commonalities, intents, patterns etc. After trying to answer on the complexion model solution, machine will give eleventh problem statement and asked to generate its own solution.

Today, computers are used in all spheres of life. They have become an integral part of most human daily activities. Clearly we can see a difference from the first computers and machines and their development until today. Negroponte in his text accurately guessed the significance of technology for architecture that is immeasurable. Their development allows freedom of design, work on more complex structures, experimentation, innovation. Man develops technology and machines, depending on their needs and objectives. We are able to develop machines to meet our needs, we can work to improve with more established errors and problems. The machine can be smart as we are able to is such a way. Their active participation in relation to technology and society work every day to improve. The point with which I don’t agree in the text is the author’s vision of future machine (seeing machine), where fully identifies human intelligence with artificial intelligence. I think that this part of the more ironic approach to the importance of technology. Man is the creator of the machine, so the machine will be smart how clever its creator.

As part of my personal research I would like to investigate how else can we improve the development of machinery, adapt it according to our needs. And im interesting about question : How much we can develop the technology? Could it really take control of us and fully identifying with the human mind?

A Critical Analysis of “Toward a Theory of Architecture Machines” by Nicholas Negroponte

This article by the well-known technological advocate Nicholas Negroponte was published in 1969 in the Journal of Architectural Education.  It essentially posits that as computers become more advanced they will achieve the capability to learn and to find their own methods of solving architectural problems.  The view of the author is that architects are incapable of solving these problems for themselves since they are either too large and complex, or too small and insignificant.  After highlighting some of the known qualities of the computers of the day (they are formidable clerks), Negroponte establishes five mechanisms that could result in a computer achieving what we know as “artificial intelligence”.  His learning machine would be capable of applying its early lessons, evaluating them with the assistance of humans, and then repeating only successful actions.  The computer would eventually assume the role of the “master designer”, working 24 hours a day alongside the human architect whose function has become interpreting the computer’s instructions to other humans for construction.

Negroponte then takes his theory of the “thinking” computer one step further by giving it the sensory capacity to become what he considers a “seeing” machine.  He breaks this concept down into three stages: the event, the manifestation and the representation.  Essentially the computer senses the event (a broad category presumably including reading plans and conversing with clients) and inputs the information as a manifestation before churning out a response.  If it is beginning to seem like Negroponte’s vision of the future consists of androids behaving exactly like humans, that’s because it is.  He imagines the “architecture machine” wandering about the city absorbing information.  Understanding the limited computing power of the present, Negroponte suggests that a computer may first observe a human building 10 block castles and construct the 11th of its own design.  Similar to engineers designing buildings, this is a prospect that must surely make all practising architects shudder.

The eager and optimistic prediction that computers can receive their high school lessons from a human and then become functioning architects with artificial intelligence has not yet come true, despite the many years of Moore’s law transistor evolution.  Perhaps this article should be read as an ironic critique of architecture during modernism rather than as an honest vision of technological utopianism.  Certainly there are limitations to what a single architect can accomplish, but that is why architects now form teams where the weaknesses of one are offset by the strengths of the others.  Architects working with digital tools are capable of producing far more complex and responsive solutions than ever before, but this can only come along with an understanding of the processing structure of the computer’s brain.  It is interesting to note that Negroponte never mentions the word “nature” in his piece, since in an apparent paradox, the clerk-like processing ability of computers has enabled humans to emulate the logics found in the work of the greatest designer of all.

The Line of Research

To that end it may be appropriate to analyze some of the great accomplishments achieved by the human mind in the realm of quantum mechanics (also known as the study of the way things really are).  The creative power of great minds in physics, such as Bohr, Einstein, Gell-Mann and Hawking, deserves to be understood by architects who are by nature fascinated by abstractions of reality.  There is no place more abstract than the multi-dimensional mathematical universe constructed by the beautiful equations of physicists.  Therefore it is worth noting that while a computer randomly outputting characters could eventually write E=mc², its true usefulness is that of a tool; although one so powerful it can demolish our preconceived illusions of the universe like so many walls surrounding us.

In his research paper Toward a Theory of Architecture Machines Nicholas Negroponte discusses the advantages of self-developing machines particularly in the field of architecture, identifying the interaction of humans and technology as evolutionary. Negroponte suggests a hypothesis claiming that the authorship of a design work created by a machine belongs unquestionably to the designer as long as the product is based on precise information added by the designer. Certainly the question of authorship becomes cryptic whether machines are able to act independently from any human input.

Doubtlessly, computer-aided design is being relevant for architectural design processes. However, in Negropontes point of view technology can only play a significant role in human lives if machines are not only able to produce, but have superior abilities.
According to Negroponte’s work, machines can give responses to environmental changes because any random sequence will somehow contain all solutions. If future technology is able to adapt and learn how to learn it will improve human’s as well architect’s lives.
The author states that it is crucial for self-improving machines to have five main features in order to be considered evolutionary. The heuristic method will only provide the optimal solution by limiting the searching process. By rote learning technology is able to compare similar situations and associate an event with a response. The conditioning device will enable technology to deal with all non-exceptional data and give responses to standardized events by employing conditional reflexes. The reward sector will function within reviewing or observing results by the designer to evaluate the machine’s operations. The exponential forgetting appliance will allow machines to learn and forget in order to sort out irrelevant or obsolete data.
Connected with human data input and a parent machine these features will be elements of a superior machine body, the architecture machine. The parent machine will provide power, stored data and a communication network.
Furthermore, Negroponte specifies three required properties of the interface which are essentially relevant in order to authorize machines to produce individually. The event is crucial for the perception of senses while the manifestation will enable technology to analyse and evaluate the data of an event. The representation will eventually allow the mapping of information and transferring it to other machines.
According to Negroponte artificial intelligence will have the potential to challenge, question and improve human’s life.

The research paper published by Nicholas Negroponte provides an advanced vision of the future integration of technology into human’s life. The interaction between mankind and machines has been intensified over the last centuries and I can definitely imagine the world changing in a similar way as Negroponte is illustrating. Technology merges with human life already in several fields as for example communication, information, science and certainly architecture as well.
Nevertheless, even if machinery is adaptable and self-improving it will mainly provide average solutions as an optimal result of comparing a variety of individual cases. In my regard, allowing technology to make decisions on our behalf could also limit individuality. As Jona Friedman states, “The average man does not exist, there are only individuals.” In my point of view, technology can only improve human life if it is able to provide new solutions instead of optimal solutions. For example most people visiting a foreign city would follow a route suggested by Google Maps. Obviously the technical device has chosen the optimal route, but is it actually the most beautiful and most exciting as well?

The more technology is involved in our world, the less humans will be personally involved in decision processes. As an example I would like to point out war drones used for violent operations. On the one hand the use of such technologies in war will certainly improve the lives of many soldiers who could evade the danger of being physically involved in a battle. One the other hand, if drones would be self-controlled, can we be confident with an emotionally and morally incapable machine deciding about human life on a battlefield?
Nonetheless, considering that tragedies as the nuclear catastrophe in Tschernobyl are fundamentally based on human failure and obsolete technologies, could disasters like this have been avoided by using advanced technologies?
I find it very difficult to define the evolution of machines as merely good or bad. Technology will be increasingly integrated in mankind’s life eventually. However, in my opinion advanced technology should be a tool providing new potentials of exploring the world. Machinery should not be a replacement for human brains, it is supposed to be an extension.

research proposal:

In his book War in the Age of Intelligent Machines Manuel De Landa deals with the symbiotic relation between humans and machines. In his work, he focuses on diverse fields such as for example architecture and artificial intelligence. According to De Landa technology invention has to be inserted into social practises in order to achieve absolute efficiency.
As part of my personal research I would like to investigate in De Landa’s theories questioning which domains in human life can actually be improved by technology. Furthermore, I would like to discover the conditions which are crucially relevant for a symbiotic relationship between mankind and machinery.

picture: https://flic.kr/p/fBTnsK – Robots replace humans in China 2.0 by Cory M. Grenier CC BY-SA 2.0