> [!NOTE]+ Meta > Date:: 2023-05-35 > Tags:: #ArtificialIntelligence > WeftLinks:: [[Reinventing the Wheel]] In a house discussion, we explored how craft can help us evaluate the new artificial intelligence based on large language models, such as ChatGPT. We posed a number of question: - What is ChatGPT and what crafts does it involve? - What was the attitude of the Arts & Crafts Movement to the machine and how might that be generalised to artificial intelligence? - What critical methologies might be applied to ChatGPT, such as "tools of conviviality" and "workmanship of risk"? - How can ChatGPT be used as a writing tool? - How has the meaning of writing as a craft changed now that it can be automated? #### Thoughts Richard Sennett, from *The Craftsman* > "By contrast with CAD, drawing by hand helps 'ingrain' design in mind . Renzo Piano professes to be a craftsman, from drawing to designing and back." Meghan O'Gieblyn from *God Human Animal Machine* >"Today, as AI continues to blow past us in benchmark after benchmark of higher cognition, we quell our anxiety by insisting that what distinguishes true consciousness is emotions, perception, the ability to experience and feel: the qualities, in other words, that we share with animals." From *ChatGPT* > "The development of ChatGPT involved significant human labor at various stages of the process, from design and architecture to data collection and curation, model training, fine-tuning, optimization, testing, and evaluation." --- Here are summaries of the discussion: ### [[Kevin Murray]] on prompt crafting The initial attempt at a craft perspective on ChatGPT focused on human agency as a feature rather than a shortcoming in the making process. But given the inevitability of tools that offer power at the expense of human control, the question is how to preserve the "human touch" while still taking advantage of the power of ChatGPT. We began by considering ChatGPT itself. We considered the process of labelling by humans to facilitate learning by back propagation. While the Large Language Model can train itself through algorithms, training by humans is required for its applications, like ChatGPT, to ensure that it does not give offense and can respond to prompts. At the user end, there is a distinction between prompt design, which targets the knowledge required, and prompt craft which nuances this knowledge according to desired comprehension levels, tone, etc. This "fine tuning" parallels the "touching up" by humans of objects produced by 3D printing. The question is whether this "human touch" at the end is intrinsic to such technologies, or just a sign that their algorithm is not quite developed enough yet, in which can it is only temporary. In this case, should requirement for a a "human touch" be deliberated engineered? We also look at attitudes to the machine during the Arts and Crafts Movement, particularly as reflected in different pedagogies. Importantly, there was a distinction between "bread labour" for necessity, and the kind of self-consciousness involved in play. This creative element was a core feature of craft at a time of mechanisation. The quality of human autonomy was also reflected in critical methodologies that could be applied to artificial intelligence. Ivan Illich's Tools for Conviviality offers a perspective that identifies key elements of autonomy, such as repair, customisation and freedom to refuse technology. In terms of writing, it was important to make the distinction between writing as an outcome and process. While generative text can facilitate the outcome of writing, it overlooks the importance of the writing process itself, particularly in developing our thoughts. There was a robust discussion. One important contribution was about the pleasure of uncertainty in the making process. This "workmanship of risk" is seen as the virtue of handmade, rather than its flaw. ### [[Aarti Kawlra]] from the perspective of craft pedagogy I would like to explore the question of learning to read, write and think “for oneself” and also “critically”, by using the difference between Tagore’s notion of craft work as ‘joy of work that is play” versus Gandhi’s notion of craft work as “bread labour”. There is a whole body of interdisciplinary WW I and II time research on human-machine interaction using biological, cognitive and anthropological sciences. I remember reading an article where the discussion was on how the neural responses of a fighter pilot were being studied to generate the optimal location of the target as well as the actual action to release the missile and attack. There is also a whole body of literature on how political “discourse” was engineered to manipulate the people and to convince them about ideologies of war. This involved the use of certain words, gestures etc. During the WWII period the word “intelligence” was commonly used for information collected by humans (undercover men and women) as carriers of secret knowledge for state power. The phrase Artificial intelligence, arguably, comes from this same “intelligence” (or secret knowledge to manipulate people only this time for private capital?) but produced artificially!   Another important aspect is the question of Language and the domination of English in higher education globally. This was also a very important discussion for Tagore. In his view, during colonial times, language learning in the mother tongue took place within a cultural/familial context and the language of the classroom which was becoming predominantly English was received and used for transactional and governance purposes. It did not have a ‘meaning-making’ function. If we see craft practice as also being meaningful to the maker then the act of speech recognition to text recognition and machine learning in AI are totally devoid of this function. Programmers will be required to know other languages than English, manuscripts and texts that are currently the domain of the digital humanities programs of many universities will have to give up their intellectual property and copyrights, if they are to be used by ChatGPT. Here too, the meaning-making function will still be missing. Entitled tech practitioners and entrepreneurs, believe they are creating alternative worlds and words like “Hallucination and vampires", both tropes of multiple world realities, are being used for this new generation of technology when it comes to human learning. AI is being used in all kinds of biotech - hearing aids etc. In a way, they need this narrative to make it sell. Just as craft was disavowed as non-modern and from the world of the past, even though it was what was fuelling innovations in modern technology in the 19th century.  Gandhi used political irony in constructing a discourse of non-violence. Tagore used poetry. It is true that these forms of speech are filled with meaning and can indeed influence readers/listeners. This is definitely being used by ChatGPT as it does not require critical analysis but is founded on linguistic freedom of expression and artistic licence. Both used craft as a language and practice for promoting an anti-machine narrative and to resist its potential for human estrangement from the real world. Are we doing the same in writing this piece? The Chatgpt app is an Unthinking chat box waiting for questions, for prompts. Its danger lies in its ability to produce false truths which are very believable. Is this not the same existential question for humanity scientists and political leaders had with regard to nuclear energy and the bomb? What we are missing is global governance on the Internet and its usage on Web 1, 2, 3. A very recent [article](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/02/opinions/india-youth-population-online-internet-employment-poonam/index.html#:~:text=As%20India's%20population%20this%20year,struggling%20to%20find%20a%20job.) on how youth from the Global South are vulnerable to jobs in cyber crimes by international syndicates is apocalyptic. I don't want to end on such a chilling note but the hidden truth (intended pun) is that of the question of spaces of labour determined by the technologies in question. Craft-based - in households, machine-based in supervised factories, in between both craft and machine - unregulated spaces; online/space of labour that is physical with one’s personal computing device, anywhere, anytime, but performing mental labour in the www. ### [[Liliana Morais]] on critical methdologies What critical methodologies might be useful to think about the human impact of ChatGPT? Based on two main ideas : Ivan Illich’s “convivial tools” and David Pye’s “workmanship of certainty” versus “workmanship of risk” Liliana Morais, Knowledge House for Craft, May 2023 I am not a specialist on ChatGPT, AI or technology in general. My primary interest is human flourishing. I research about crafts, migration, and multicultural exchanges. I am particularly interested in the culturally located, place-based, and relational ways of knowing that are involved in the making of things.  As such, in this brief presentation I summarize some ideas that have crossed my path while teaching and researching about crafts that might be useful to for us to think about ChatGPT, in particular  Austrian philosopher and critic Ivan Illich’s concept of “convivial tools” and British designer David Pye’s distinction between “workmanship of certainty” versus “workman of risk”. Beyond human versus machine: craftsmanship of risk versus craftsmanship of certainty The handling of tools and machines is a part of the practice of many craftspeople, making the opposition between hand and machine particularly unfruitful. Instead, human relationship to technology can be seen through the lenses of a spectrum of human autonomy, that is, the power to make decisions, take risks, and problem-solve at each step of the process, and this can be applied to both the making and using of things.  Artisanal ways of working and dealing with the material world, within and beyond fields traditionally defined as craft, stress the process of thinking through action as a process of learning and exploration that involves creativity and improvisation, while allowing for the possibility of risks and mistakes. As such, the result of this activity would be a direct consequence of the knowledge and skill of the human actor, which is what David Pye calls the “workmanship of risk”. In contrast, automation is emblematic of what he calls “workmanship of certainty”. Other scholars have defined artisanal ethos as a distinct orientation to work and to what work entails” and craftsmanship the “ability to do something well for its own sake”. The antithesis to the “modernist ethos of production and service” characterized by division of labour, efficiency, large scale, productivity, and profit”. In fact, many critiques of industrialism, which now pervades most organizations in society, have stressed the impacts of the fragmentation of knowledge and skill on human well-being, with a lack of understanding of the whole leading to a loss of one’s sense of competence.  #### Critiques of technology Illich’s criticism of industrial society stresses how compulsory technological development, rather than technology itself, is the problem, especially when based on Western modernist views of scientific knowledge and rationality endorsed and monopolized by large institutions that marginalize other forms of knowing, particular those of women and ethnic minorities. Compulsory technological development innovation, rather than motivated by the desire to fulfill human needs and advance human flourishing, is motivated by the market, profit, and the ideology of growth and progress, thus hindering conviviality, which Illich defines as “individual freedom realized in personal interdependence”. With the institutionalization and undemocratic centralization of knowledge and values in a few specialists, whose skills and tasks are increasingly fragmented, Illich argues, people lose their natural ability to do things they could do for themselves: build houses, cure and care for themselves and others, repair goods, tools, and machines, learn, think and write... Instead, they become consumers by delegating most of their lives to experts in large corporations and institutions, or to the technologies they develop. Take the example of craft. Rather than becoming obsolete, didn’t industrialization make craft, and the ability to make, use, and repair things, the monopoly of a few specialists? Contrary to the printing press, which deprofessionalized the written word, will ChatGPT monopolize writing and thinking? Furthermore, new technologies are constantly sent out into the world without proper societal evaluation. The lack of transparency around the inner workings of tools is tied to increased specialization and knowledge fragmentation, hindering personal autonomy, collective self-determination, and self-reliance. Drawing on Illich, the authors of the recent publication *The Future is Degrowth* also ask: is a “hierarchical division of labor, expertise, management, and security” amenable for a democratic society”? #### Convivial tools for a a convivial society In a convivial society, modern technologies will serve politically interrelated, autonomous, and creative individuals rather than managers, Illich says. Social arrangements and mutual dependencies between humans and between humans and the environment, which aim at guaranteeing that each member has the most ample and free access to the tools of the community, implies that certain tools whose actual structured hinders conviviality would be limited. For Illich, convivial tools are tools that can be easily used, by anybody, as often or as seldom as desired, without any imposition to use them, and be used for the accomplishment of a purpose chosen by the user themselves.  Illich’s concept of convivial tools bridges the artisanal ethos of making and dealing with things through a focus on practices of repair, customization, open design, as well DIT (do it together) and DIY.  To finish, I will leave you with a set of values characteristics of convivial technology, that is, tools that people can use and shape in a personal and democratic matter, put together by the authors of The Future is Degrowth. I hope these will prove useful in future discussions about ChatGPT and how we can advocate for a public and democratic assessment of this technology to come up with procedures that guarantee personal and collective shaping is possible. Alternatively, as Illich proposes, we may need to resort to the imposition of limits on mandatory technological innovation, especially in face of impeding climate disaster. [[Attachments/7e6946516c4d00b46bdb56df5dfd4cde_MD5.png|Open: Pasted image 20230607154114.png]] ![[Attachments/7e6946516c4d00b46bdb56df5dfd4cde_MD5.png]] ### [[Benjamin Lignel]] My questions for the day focus on the Impact of massively available AI on writing in the craft classroom: Can this technology be framed as anything other than a threat to both the mind and hand that think? Does it, in fact , reinforce that binary…or help us challenge it? I want to start by distinguishing between the craft of writing from the exercise of thinking through writing: the latter is really what interests me.  I will also note my resistance to the terms “artificial” and “intelligence”, which evokes a binary between the work of the mind and that of the hand, and immediately frames the technology as a deceptive mimic.  I will lean a little on Tim Ingold, and propose to rename a technology that exceeds it technological determinism, that produces the unpredictable, as “artful”, or “talented”: I will call IA, for the purpose of my reflection, “talented technology”. I hope the impact on your ears is not euphemistic: i.e. i am not trying to make the vast cultural changes we are facing prettier than they are - but I want to sidestep for a second the antagonistic framework that “artificial intelligence” imposes on the conversation. One of the many articles that was published on the advent of Chat GPT describes how doctoral student Anicca Harriott, at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, has used [Scholarcy](https://www.scholarcy.com/) and [Scite](https://scite.ai/?gclid=CjwKCAjwzuqgBhAcEiwAdj5dRvSyUBZjY8ueg8YwAF-KyE-yF2MA6NMQVK8VbhBYGUPmX6fYb-oB1hoCD8UQAvD_BwE) to work on her PhD- among other A.I. tools that find, aggregate and summarize relevant papers. Like you,  I find it difficult to imagine a world in which delegating the synthesis and articulation of ideas is a good thing for students and teachers, in which it does not undermine the tenet of “thinking for yourself”. It is also difficult to envisage how the help of IA in developing new forms (results) will not derail the craft project of thinking with materials. We can imagine, as some teachers have done, forbidding students to use Char GPT to write their papers, or using dedicated tech to hunt down synthetic language production. And yet,  conversation with our guest Francis Pisani – a technology journalist who publishes his ongoing reflexion on AI on the blog [https://francispisani.substack.com](https://francispisani.substack.com/)  suggests that the danger may not lie in the machine’s ability to produce human-looking intelligence, but in our inability to work with it, understand its challenges and possibilities. So, let me try to take a more organic path - as I continue to think about students, and writing… Going back to the classroom,  I would like to know how interacting with Talented Tech can help the students (1) think of themselves as researchers, and (2) establish links between studio and non-studio work. **First** - Kevin, in one of our prep convo, suggested that Talented Tech invites us to ask good or better questions - I could imagine using TT not to produce writing but to produce questions. Doing so might be a way to model criticality in the classroom ; **Second** - One of the most impressive aspect of TT  is that it is able to build an argument from existing scholarship: doing so is one of the challenges that green writers face. I am excited by the possibility of using Chat GPT “arguments” as models: to unpack how they are put together, and the intellectual genealogy that they are built on; **Finally** - and this is perhaps the most promising lead for me - I have been advocating in my classrooms for a thinking studio practice: a practice not hinged on the division between studio work, and library research — but one that establishes links between the two. In conversation with me, Francis Pisani explained how personal data management system allow him to connect keywords across different databases. Hearing him, I can imagine students using Talented Tech to connect studio notes, field notes, and reading notes. This, as Francis points out, will require that we get better at making notes – and think of them not just as part of a documentation, and memorisation process, but as part of a research practice. And so, at this stage of my very limited understanding of Talented Technology, I look forward to bringing the following questions to the craft classroom : • How can TT help us develop a “craft of asking (critical) questions”?  • How can TT help us unpack the “craft of building arguments,”  • How does TT help us improve our “craft of note-taking”. Describing these activities as “craft” is a little bit of semantic slippage – but it is a generative one as it no longer posits cognitive and manual work as opposed. The word “craft”, in all instances, describes an activity of shaping tools to makes sense of the world, and our own practices. ### [[Sachiko Tamashige]] Handicraft in the age of AI and Chat GPT Chat GPT is a product of Open AI, one of interactive generative AI, so I would like to proceed with the discussion from the perspective of how to face AI in general. Since the launch of Chat GPT in November 2022, the number of users has surpassed 100 million in a blink of an eye, and as it spreads rapidly, IT development experts have sounded the alarm that "the human race is in danger of extinction." There is an urgent need to create regulations and rules to ensure safety and copyright. On 12th June, Open AI CEO Sam Altman, who was visiting Japan, interacted with Keio University students which might accelerate the use of Chat GPT among university students in Japan. AI such as Chat GPT has opened a Pandora's box, and I don't think it will be possible to stop its spread. Think about when humans once invented knives. With the advent of knives, basic human life such as hunting, gathering, farming, obtaining food, housing, and clothing has become even more convenient, and has become the foundation for the development of civilization. Surgical scalpels and other medical techniques are tools that save lives, and on the other hand, they can also be weapons that kill people. A knife, by itself, is a neutral tool, but the results can be good or bad, depending on the intent, purpose, and use of the person. AI such as Chat GPT, like knives and other technologies, will contribute to the rapid progress of mankind depending on the intentions and purposes of those who use it, and it also carries the risk of human extinction. The rapid evolution of generative AI is an unknown quantity, and the process is also a black box, surpassing human capabilities in a blink of an eye, and it can become uncontrollable. That is why the immediate creation of rules and the literacy and appropriate usage of users are being called into question. At the moment, Chat GPT is functioning as a tool, but I think it will eventually get consciousness and autonomy as it evolves, considering the case of goole’s LaMDA in 2022. In the near future, lifelines such as water and electricity, refrigerators, cooking utensils, and toilets will all be equipped with AI. So if you want to live without AI, you have no choice but to live a self-sufficient analogue life on a deserted island or deep forest. So, how do I face AI such as Chat GPT? I am aware that I am already receiving electric appliances and services equipped with AI in my daily life, and I would like to be very careful when actively using AI . I want to live a life that maintains a good balance between digital and analog. If I were to use Chat GPT, I would collect data, research the works that have been published so far, with AI and then think of themes that only I could write about. For example, if the theme is "mirror", Chat GPT will be enough for general information about mirrors such as, its function and history, or famous stories like "Snow White", "Alice in the Land of Mirrors", that have already been published on the Internet. However, as a freelance journalist, in order to write an article that sells, I need to write an unknown story from an unique point of view. In my article which I wrote for [Garland magazine](https://garlandmag.com/loop/alchemy-in-japanese-traditional-craft-the-transformation-of-light-in-tamahagane-forging-and-polishing/) a few years ago, I linked mirrors, objects of ancient Japanese worship, with cutting-edge high-tech space telescopes. I think it reflects my identity, my specific interests, my cosmology. If I were to write an article on this subject using Chat GPT today, I would need a prompt with keywords such as "mirror, astronomy, an example of its use in cutting-edge space exploration etc." I think it would be useful to deepen your thoughts while having a dialogue with Chat GPT. In order to survive as a journalist in the future, I have always tried to do so, but I think it is even more necessary to have a strong desire to tell something new and significant, original ideas, and passion. Then, by referring to existing data and sentences, create sentences that are processed with my own interpretation and sensibility, and write them at a good tempo by adding feeling and thoughts from my own experiences. Of course, when reporting facts, always try to be objective, calm and accurate. As for the significance of crafts in the AI era, I would like to continue the discussion using the "mirror" as an example. In ancient times, mirrors were special high-tech valuables that could only be owned by rulers, those in charge of rituals, and the privileged class. Today, however, mass-produced mirrors have become an everyday item that can be purchased at one coin shop for only 100-yen. Many people may not feel the mysterious power of mirrors, which are usually used for daily grooming and makeup. However, the Japanese traditional craft of Japanese mirrors (bronze mirrors) is exceptional. Bronze mirror is not just a handicraft, such as the Three Sacred Treasures of the Imperial Regalia or sacred treasures of shrines, but it is believed that the spirit of god dwells in it and is considered a sacred existence. It is also a remnant of antiquity. The mirror, one of the Three Sacred Treasures, has the highest rank, is said to be the object of worship of Ise Jingu (Naiku), which enshrines Amaterasu Omikami (= Sun Goddess), because mirror was associated with the worship for the sun(see * footnote below). In Japan, bronze mirrors have been enshrined as sacred mirrors in many shrines, including Ise Jingu, since ancient times. Kyoto used to be a major producer of bronze mirrors, such as sacred mirrors and ordinary bronze mirrors for daily use. But once mirrors started being mass produced, most of bronze mirrors makers disappeared and Yamamoto family is now the only mirror maker's workshop that has been passed down the traditional technique of bronze mirror making. The main customers for the handmade bronze mirrors of the Yamamoto family are shrines, temples and museums. Most of their work includes dedicating new sacred treasures and repairing museum collections. Even so, they sometimes accept orders from the general public as arts and crafts. I once had Mr. Akihisa Yamamoto make the magical mirror called "Sora" and then, I was able to see the process of making the mirror by hand using ancient methods. First, a sand mold is pressed hard by a machine, and hundreds of spatulas are used to carve out the pattern of the back of the mirror. Dry the patterned sand mold. A base metal (1200° C.) of bronze (alloy of copper and tin) melted at high temperature is poured into a dry sand mold and cast. When the cast disc-shaped copper mirror plate cools down, it is ground with a file etc.and the mirror surface is sharpened with a whetstone, polished with charcoal or Suruga charcoal, and then plated.  Casting  and polishing are often done by division of labor, but Akihisa does the process alone. The casting site in the middle of summer was so scorching hot that I got a heat stroke just by observing. During the mirror polishing process, Akihisa sits with his legs crossed and silently dedicated himself to polishing the mirror surface. It's a long, monotonous task, but he never gets tired of it, and rather enjoys it. Once, when a monk saw Akihisa polishing, he said Akihisa looked as if in a meditative state. 　　　　 Polishing the magic mirror-like surface to create fine unevenness is a delicate manual process that can detect the nano level. The craftsmanship, concentration, and carefree attitude of traditional craftsmen are also common to lathe workers in town factories who make elaborate parts for space rockets at the request of NASA. The secret to producing high-precision products is the delicate and keen sensibility, physicality, and concentration that allows the mindlessness of Japanese people to listen to the voices of nature such as rocks and trees, which must have been cultivated since the ancient Jomon period. Japanese swords, kitchen knives used in high-end restaurants, and other tools that are very popular overseas can be created through the polishing techniques of Japanese people. And it is the most conspicuous manifestation of the DNA of Japanese craftsmanship that has been passed down since ancient times. And in the process of manufacturing, the Japanese do even the seemingly trivial tasks of shaving, polishing, and so on, diligently and single-mindedly, and enter a state of immersion. The “zone,” as athletes call it. I believe that this area of fine craftsmanship has traditionally produced things that are said to have "souls", giving them a sense of mysterious power. If we catch it with a quantum mechanical observer, we might detect a special magnetic field. Perhaps that is where the ultimate analog power that can only be achieved by skilled and dedicated craftsmen. Most modern users do not seek that kind of quality, beauty, perfection, or mystery in mirrors. In the future, craftsmanship will be questioned more about the individuality of the creator, the warmth of their handmade work, their originality, and their attitude, rather than their function. On the other hand, because it is a digital product, AI can also do fairytale things. Now, you can instantly turn your smartphone screen into a mirror and check your appearance. Then, if the function of the mirror and interactive AI are combined, it may be possible to make another person looking like you appear in the mirror and have a dialogue with you. It may be a lovable alter-ego, or it may be an eerie existence. Which mirror do you want ?  Handicraft magic mirror or AI interactive mirror ? The evolution of interactive and generative AI such as Chat GPT is remarkable, and its possibilities and dangers are unknown. That's why we must face it positively, but cautiously. #### Footnote *footnote “Yata no Kagami” one of the Imperial Ragalia One of the three sacred treasures of the Japanese imperial family is a mirror called the "Yata no Kagami". In the scene of Tenson Kourin in the Kojiki, Amaterasu Omikami gave Ninimi no Mikoto three sacred treasures when he descended from heaven, and said, > "Think of the mirror as your soul, and worship me as if you were worshiping me.'' > In Japan, however, long before the personal deity Amaterasu was recognized, the mirror was an important device for sun worship. A mirror was discovered on top of a huge rock as an archaeological relic at the site of an ancient ritual on Okinoshima. Before shrines were built, people worshiped nature itself, such as mountains, rivers, giant rocks. The fragments of mirrors found on rocks are traces of the ancient people's worship of the sun, in which mirrors were placed on the rocks where they performed rituals, reflecting the light of the sun. Also, according to one theory by an ancient Shinto expert, there is a legend that mirrors were made from meteorites that fell from the sky in ancient times, and that the "Yata no Kagami" is also made from meteorites. No one, including successive emperors, is allowed to see "Yata no Kagami", so its reality is hidden under a veil of mystery.