Making Sense and Meaning¶
Designing Worlds with Today’s Tools: Exploring the Evolving Nature of Design Knowledge and Synthetic Intelligence¶
In recent years, technology has given us unprecedented power to design and shape the world around us. From smartphones and social media to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, we are surrounded by powerful tools that allow us to create new worlds and experiences. Nonetheless, it must not be forgotten that such power comes with a great responsibility to use it in ways that benefit society and the environment. In this essay, we explore how modern literature poses different frameworks to design for equitable futures. In turn, hereby we will evaluate which worlds we can design with today’s tools, how we can design the transition toward these worlds, and how design knowledge is evolving alongside the rise of Artificial Intelligence.
In “Design as Participation”, Kevin Slavin presents a radical departure from traditional design practices that have long been characterized by a top-down approach. According to Slavin, design should be viewed as a collaborative process. This participatory approach represents a significant shift in thinking, which acknowledges that design is not just about creating products or services but is also about creating the conditions for people to live enriched lives. By involving people in the design process, we can create solutions that are more relevant, effective, and sustainable. As stated by the author, a participatory approach to design thus ensures that people’s needs and desires are taken into account, making the solutions more relevant and effective. It also ensures that the solutions are more sustainable, as people are more likely to adopt and maintain solutions they have helped to create. Furthermore, it promotes a sense of ownership and empowerment among the users, as they feel more invested in the solutions they have helped to create. Overall, a participatory approach to design promotes solutions that are effective, sustainable, and relevant to the people who use them.
When speaking of collaborative design, we must not hesitate to ask the question: who are we collaborating with today in today’s scenario? Even as we collaborate as humans within ourselves, it must not be ignored how communication today is more often than not mediated by technological platforms. Having said that, participatory approaches to design should not exclude participation with non-human parties such as Artificial Intelligence. AI and mass communication can play a significant role in implementing the participatory approach to design that Slavin advocates for. These sources of synthetic knowledge can help to analyze large amounts of data and provide insights into user needs and preferences, enabling designers to create more relevant and effective solutions. Additionally, AI-powered tools can facilitate collaboration and communication between designers and users, allowing for a more participatory design process. AI and mass communication technologies can thus play a significant role in implementing the participatory approach to design that Slavin advocates for.
On a more pessimistic note, as evidence to Slavin’s optimal framework for design, Patel and Moore highlight how our current non-collaborative systems serve to feed for deteriorative futures. The authors bring to light the consequences of the modern capitalist system that has emerged from the exploitation of cheap nature, money, work, care, food, energy, and lives. They argue that the current system, based on the exploitation of these cheap things, has resulted in a multitude of crises such as climate change, mass extinction of species, and unprecedented levels of inequality. The authors continuously point out that this is not only morally wrong but also unsustainable in the long run. The call for a radical shift in our values and priorities is necessary if we are to create a more sustainable and equitable world for all. This requires a comprehensive rethinking of our economic and political systems, as well as a collective effort to address the social and environmental challenges facing humanity. The piece hence serves as a reminder that we must consider the long-term consequences of our actions, and that the pursuit of short-term gains should not come at the cost of our planet and its inhabitants.
Having said that, while developing technologies have the potential to aid global collaboration for diverse and equitable futures, we must not help but question to what extent Artificial Intelligence and digital communication platforms might not be just another one of these “cheap things”. For example, while Artificial Intelligence such as ChatGPT provide convenient and cost-free sources of information, we must not ignore that AI systems can perpetuate and even amplify existing biases and discrimination, particularly if they are trained on biased data or developed without adequate oversight and ethical guidelines. This can lead to unfair treatment of certain groups, reinforce stereotypes, and contribute to social inequalities. AI technologies can also pose significant risks to individual privacy and security, particularly if they are used for surveillance or data mining. Here we must pose the question, how are these short-term digital interactions molding our futures? What kinds of data are we donating, and how will these be used? While Artificial Intelligence and digital communication platforms could be used as tools for collaborative interventions, we must not ignore that such mediums for our intra-species communications are important and prevalent sources of synthetic knowledge. In turn, we must continuously question who owes the power to create and disseminate this synthesized information in order to ensure that these are used for positive long-term changes, rather than short-term convenience in exchange for lucrative monopolies of information.
Dr. Frederick van Amstel’s work on design and oppression is also relevant to this discussion. He argues that design decisions are often made by people in positions of power and that these decisions can have a significant impact on marginalized communities. Similarly, the design of automated communication technologies can perpetuate biases and discrimination if it is not done with a diverse group of people in mind. Amstel’s work thus suggests that the kind of worlds we design must be conscious of the power dynamics at play and must strive to be inclusive and equitable.
On a more positive perspective, Gregory Bateson’s “Steps to an Ecology of Mind” emphasizes the interconnectedness of everything and calls for a holistic understanding of the world according to different systems of knowledge. The implications of this view go far beyond the natural world and apply to human-made systems such as technology, economics, and politics. In this light, the ecological approach can inform the design of systems that are better aligned with the natural world and that foster more sustainable and harmonious relationships between humans and the environment. According to Bateson, this shift toward an ecological approach to design can help us overcome the limitations of the reductionist and mechanistic approaches that have dominated design thinking for centuries. Bateson’s ideas offer a valuable framework for understanding and addressing complex problems taking a systemic and interdependent approach to design solutions.
When viewed through an ecological lens, the exponential growth of communication technologies and Artificial Intelligence can be seen as a valuable component in shaping the ecology of Futures. AI has the potential to improve decision-making processes, enhance our understanding of complex systems, and create opportunities for sustainable development. This, in turn, can allow us to dedicate more time and resources toward creative ideation for more equitable futures. Having said that, as we develop AI, it is imperative that we continuously re-evaluate its potential impact on social, economic, and environmental systems, and take a multidisciplinary approach that involves collaboration between scientists, engineers, social scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders. By doing so, we can ensure that AI is designed and utilized in ways that align with ecological principles and foster sustainable and equitable outcomes. Additionally, taking an ecological approach to AI design can help us address the ethical implications of its prevalent technologies, where we must observe what outcomes are being autonomously created so as to guide such dissemination of information in an equitable direction.
Nonetheless, it is difficult to pinpoint whether Artificial Intelligence will aid in collaborative practices, or surrender as cheap solutions for short-term problems. Could it be that there is no definite answer to such a dilemma? “The Dawn of Everything” by David Graeber and David Wengrow provides a historical perspective on human societies and their relationship with technology. The authors challenge the idea of linear progress and demonstrate that many societies in the past were highly innovative and sophisticated in their use of technology. This history suggests that the kind of worlds we design should not be based on the assumption of progress, but rather on recognizing that there have been and continue to be many different ways of living and organizing societies. Graeber and Wengrow’s historical perspective on human societies raises important questions about the assumptions underlying the development and implementation of these technologies. One key question is whether AI development is driven solely by the goal of progress and efficiency, or whether it takes into account the diverse range of human societies and their unique needs and values. Additionally, the historical perspective on technology highlights the importance of considering the social and ethical implications of AI development and deployment. For example, the potential impact of AI on employment and labor markets raises questions about how we can design AI systems that prioritize human well-being and social equity. Overall, Graeber and Wengros’s work highlights the importance of recognizing the diversity of human experience and designing AI systems that reflect this diversity, prioritizing social and ethical considerations.
In conclusion, technology has great power to design and shape the world around us, but such revolutionary algorithmic force must be used responsibly in ways that cater to collective Futures. The participatory approach to design, advocated by Kevin Slavin, can help create solutions that are effective, sustainable, and relevant to the people who use them. I believe that this approach should not exclude participation with non-human parties such as Artificial Intelligence. We must not harden the association between technological advancement and progress per se. In contrast, we must accept these tools as new elements of our existing environments, and use them consciously in order to ensure that these new technologies will produce equitable outcomes for our collective Futures.
Van Amstel, Frederick. “Can Designers Change Systematic Oppression.” Frederick Van Amstel, https://fredvanamstel.com/.
Bateson. “Steps to an Ecology of Mind.” University of Chicago Press, 1 Apr. 2000, https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3620295.html.
Graeber, David, and D. Wengrow. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Signal, 2023.
Patel, and Moore. “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things.” University of California Press, 2017, https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520299931/a-history-of-the-world-in-seven-cheap-things.
Slavin, Kevin. “Design as Participation.” Journal of Design and Science, 24 Feb. 2016, https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation.**