<nettime> Banality of code

[Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@gmail.com>]

Instructions written at one place and time, executing at another place 
and time, are relatively new to the species. We are used to inanimate 
objects that are relatively easy to comprehend, from hammer to train 
locomotive. We are not used to objects that 'think'. Cats and parrots 
may think, but locomotives don't.

This new class of thinking objects makes decisions on the fly. So what 
are these objects, really? Cats? No, cat is relatively predictable and 
not too smart, plus rather fearful. These objects enforce complex 
policies, and can make life-critical decisions. For the sake of 
discussion, let's assume that all the glitches are fixed; today's 
thinking objects may be slightly retarded inexperienced beginners, but 
tomorrow they are going to get rather good.

What happens when an object makes an appropriate policy-based decision 
that you disagree with? From PKD's Ubik:

---
... he therefore vigorously strode to the apt door, turned the knob
and pulled on the release bolt.
 The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.”
 He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you
tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it
remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the
nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.”
 “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract
you signed when you bought this conapt.”
 In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had
found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough;
payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory
fee. Not a tip.
 “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug.

 From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife;
with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his
apt’s money-gulping door.
 “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out.
 Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can
live through it.”
---

It totally doesn't matter if thinking objects make life 'better'. That's 
bs marketing copy. They act without warning, because we cannot read 
their face or mood. They make things happen to us unconditionally; there 
is no exchange.

These objects perform activities without responsibility and fear of 
repercussions; they don't have self-preservation drive; you cannot 
threaten them. The ones who defined the policy and its execution are 
safely far away.

These objects are only following orders, and they don't give a f*ck if 
you hang them.


On 3/18/19, 13:25, tbyfield wrote:
> Obviously, quite a lot has happened since then, and a big part of it has
> to do with the growing reliance on computation in every aspect of
> aviation. In short, the problem isn't limited to the plane as a
> technical object: it also applies to *the entire process of conceiving,
> designing, manufacturing, and maintaining planes*. This interpenetration
> has become so deep and dense that — at least, this is how I take
> Morlock's point — Boeing, as an organization, has lost sight of its
> basic responsibility: a regime — organizational, conceptual, technical —
> that *guarantees* their planes work, where 'work' means reliably move
> contents from point A to B without damaging the plane or the contents.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: