The Nature of Humans and Machines — A Multidisciplinary Discourse: Papers from the 2014 AAAI Fall Symposium
The Multi-Disciplinary Case for
Human Sciences in Technology Design
Cindy Mason
U.C. Berkeley
cindymason@media.mit.edu
primary vectors for positive and negative impacts of
technology on our cells and our social relationships with
each other and our environment. We outline the codiscoveries supporting the argument for human sciences in
technology.
Abstract
Connecting
the
dots
between
discoveries
in
neuroscience(neuroplasticity), psychoneuroimmunology(the
brain-immune loop) and user experience (gadget rub-off)
indicate the nature of our time spent with gadgets is a vector
in human health - mentally, socially and physically. The
positive design of our interactions with devices therefore
can have a positive impact on economy, civilization and
society. Likewise, the absence of design that encourages
positive interaction may encourage undesirable behaviors.
Much like the architecture of physical spaces and buildings,
the consequences of the architecture of the 21stcentury
conversation between man and machine may last
generations. AI and the Internet of Things are primary
vectors for positive and negative impacts of technology.
We describe a growing body of co-discoveries occurring
across a variety of disciplines that support the argument for
human sciences in technology design.
A Day In The Life of A Palo Alto Oblivitron
Let us define a new word: oblivitron. An oblivitron is
someone who is oblivious to what is going on around them
because they are engaging with a device. The following is
an excerpt from a real day in the life of oblivitrons in
present day Palo Alto. As I read the Palo Alto Daily, our
local daily paper, I notice a small article about the teenage
girl that was struck by a train while listening to music with
earphones walking across a train track. At the Palo Alto
Whole Foods grocery I see a mother talking to Siri and
pushing buttons with one hand while absently pushing a
stroller with the other as the baby looks up at her. In the
next moment a driver zips through the white lines of a
cross walk without seeing the older gentleman tottering
into view because the driver is texting.
These daily life scenarios are possibly familiar to many
of us by now. They represent but a few actual examples of
our current daily interaction with gadgets happening across
cities all over. Together they indicate an apparent absence
of forethought on how humans might co-evolve with
devices in every day life and society. Such obviously
wrong scenarios will only increase and become more
bizarre if we do not incorporate human sciences into
technology. If we also consider co-discoveries of brain
plasticity, gadget rub-off and the brain-immune loop there
is a strong case for including explicit tools and training that
are pro-human sciences in our software tool kits and
Discoveries in NeuroPlasticity,
PsychoNeuroImmunology and User
Experience
By connecting the dots between discoveries across a
number of disciplines we find technological devices and
other objects have modifying impacts on mind and brain
structure, social fabrics, and immune function. These
discoveries include but are not limited to 1)
neuroplasticity: our brains and minds actually change
according
to
the
experiences
we
have
2)
psychoneuroimmunology: positive mental state means
positive health and 3) user experience: we are changing
our selves, our relations and society as a result of our user–
device experiences (Masona 2013). The import of each of
these discoveries increases as we consider the rise of the
IOT (Internet of Things). AI and the Internet of Things are
Copyright © 2014, Association for the Advancement of Artificial
Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.
18
technology courses and curricula.1
Presently few
departments for human sciences exist. The brain, immune
and other discoveries we describe will make clear why we
need to do this not just for ourselves and our children but
for the generations to come.
The remainder of the paper gives detailed discussion of
the co-discoveries. The discussion centers on three things:
robots and software agents, neuroplasticity and the brains
of psychopathic killers and the Dalai Lama. The
connection of these three concepts to our co-evolution with
technology is neuroplasticity and the center of it is the
design of the constant conversation developing between
humans, our devices and each other.
or more broadly, is there a common association of space
among our senses, neuroscientists have provided us with
“fossil records” – evidence based accounts that neurons in
cortical regions devoted to one sensory modality in fact
respond to two or more modalities (Falcier et al. 2002).
The discovery of neuroplasticity means that no matter how
old we become, repetitive exposure to objects, agents,
thoughts and stimulants in our environment alters brain
structure and function (Beagley 2007) (Davidson and Lutz
2007). If we repeatedly interact with places people or
things that cultivate certain emotions, thoughts, attitudes
and so forth, it increases those emotions and attitudes in
ourselves and predisposes our brain structure and function
towards those repetitive cues. Without an intent to create
positive human experience involving empathy and positive
relationships, we are repeatedly interacting with devices
that are, for lack of a better word, psychopathic. According
to the theory of neuroplasticity, with repeated interaction
with psychopathic or indifferent devices, we are modifying
our own minds and brains to lose that capacity and in
effect are anesthetizing ourselves. Without this capacity
for feeling and empathy, we ourselves risk increasing
psychopathic tendencies.
To be clear about the importance of this aspect of device
interaction and neuroplasticity, please consider the
following MRI study involving the brains of convicted
murders in a prison facility in Wisconsin (Motzkin et al.
2011). Researchers at the U. New Mexico created a
portable MRI that was used to examine brains of convicted
murders. In this study, MRI brain scans of convicted
psychopathic murderers were compared to those of nonpsycopathic murderers (those who have regret and guilt).
The scans show marked differences in regions of the brain
governing empathy and ability to feel (Motzkin et al.
2011).
Putting the two concepts of neuroplasticity and user
interaction together, we immediately understand that the
consequences of surrounding our human selves with
objects, images or environments devoid of features that
support and encourage positive mental capacities for
feeling and empathy. In its absence, we will “enhance”
ourselves towards that psychopathic brain.
Less
dramatically, it is simply the case that positive emotion has
positive impact on our health (and vice versa).
Robots and Software Agents
Hybrid robot-human and robot-robot societies are
approaching fast. Nordstrom Robotics has great plans for
the introduction of vast numbers of robots into society in
less than three years as evidenced by the project with Japan
and Hungary. Fully automatic Google cars and drones are
now being test driven between Berkeley and Mountain
View, California. Software agents Siri and Watson are but
a glimpse of what is coming down the pipe from IBM and
other places. Cliff Nass and his team at Stanford have
shown not only do we regard machines like people but that
we then regard one another like our machines (Reeves and
Nass 1996) (Nass and Moon 2000). The social mix of
humans and robots, humans and software agents, or simply
our devices and objects, takes this observation to a new
level of play in the game because the way we treat one
another adds up to the way we are as a society. Should our
interaction with drones, google cars and software agents
have compassion? These are issues we need to consider.
We look to the field of neuroscience to see how these
interactions can change our brains.
Neuroplasticity and Psychopathic Killers
Remarkable discoveries related to cognition in
neuroscience have huge implications for the design of
technology now in every day use. Centuries old questions
that psychologists, philosophers and AI researchers could
only debate in abstract terms can now be answered with
real evidence from high density electrophysiology,
functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) structural
MRI inducting diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), positron
emission tomography (PET) and immune and endocrine
measures. For instance, to Molyneux’s 300 year old
question, “Is there a connection between touch and sight?”
The Dalai Lama
For a long time, the Dalai Lama has promoted the idea of
compassion. Without it, he says, human kind will not
survive. Although it may seem unscientific to hear such a
statement, the value of ancient wisdom becomes
scientifically validated when considering the following list
of discoveries around human health and things like
kindness, aggression, loving touch, happiness and so on.
1
Human sciences is a collection of disciplines focused on
common sense knowledge about being human.
19
The following is a partial of the growing body of relevant
studies:
existence has huge potential. Together the interdisciplinary
collection of discoveries provides a blueprint on how to
move forward and maximize human potential.
· Rate of wound healing is affected by domestic
conflict/emotional happiness (DeVries et al. 2007).
There are three concepts that together can empower us:
intentional positive design, neuroplasticity and technology.
At this juncture, we have the choice how to design the
objects in our world to be supportive of positive human
traits. For example, we can create positive emotion in a
web browsing experience using color, fonts, images, and
content that is intentionally supportive of positive emotion
and human sciences. These ideas have huge implications
for design and our awareness of this connection could not
come at a better time.
· Lower cardiovascular reactivity is related to warm partner
contact (Kiecolt-Glaser et al. 2008).
· Brain glucose metabolism is affected by psychosocial
stressors (Kern et al. 2008).
· The creation of neural stem cells governing short term
memory and the expression of genes regulating the stress
response are positively affected by motherly affect
(Meaney et al. 2001). Dr. Meaney's work has received the
Royal Order of Quebec, among many other awards and
inspired the public health agencies in Canada to begin
investigating more formally the role that motherly
nurturing has on human health and the need to quash
aggression in our families and trusted social circles.
References
Azar, B., 2001. A New Take on Psychoneuroimmunology,
Monitor on Psychology 32-1:34.
Begley, S. 2007. Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain: How a
New Science Reveals Our Extraordinary Potential to Transform
Ourselves, New York, New York: Ballantine.
· Positive cognitive state influences positive immune
response and vice versa (Azar 2001) (Davidson et al. 2003)
(Wager et al. 2008). Its called the immune-brain loop.
Davidson, R. and Lutz, A. 2007. Buddha's Brain: Neuroplasticity
and Meditation. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine,
September:171-174.
This growing body of these discoveries relate to our
interactions with one another, and the objects in our
surroundings. It highlights how important our positive
social interactions are for our selves, our fellow beings and
for society as a whole. It affects not only our brains, our
happiness, our health and ultimately our economy and
social sustainability. It also changes our awareness of our
environment. For a description on how to build a robot
with compassion see (Masonb 2012) (Masonc 2010).
Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J. Schumacher, J. Rosenkranz, M.,
Muller, D., Santorelli, S., Urbanowski, F., Harrington, A., Bonus,
K., Sheridan, J. F. 2003. "Alterations in Brain and Immune
Function Produced by Mindfulness Meditation". Psychosomatic
Medicine 65(4): 564–570.
Summary and Discussion
Grewen, K., Anderson B., Girdler S., and Light K. 2003. Warm
partner contact is related to lower cardiovascular reactivity,
Behavioral Medicine, 29(3):123-30.
DeVries, A., Craft, T., Glasper, E., Neigh, G., and Alexander, J.
2007. Curt P Richter Award Winner: Social influences on stress
responses and health, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32:587-603.
Falchier, A., Clavagnier, S., Barone, P., and Kennedy, H. 2002.
Anatomical evidence of multimodal integration in primate striate
cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience. 22:5749-5759.
For reasons that may never be clear, emotions and affect
were minimized or ignored in a variety of fields, most
notably AI. It turns out affect is deeply intertwined with
cognition, immune function, glucose metabolism and a
host of other basic human functions. The fields of Artificial
Intelligence and Intelligent User Interaction are definitely
due for a radical revision in light of the multi-disciplinary
collection of discoveries, but could this whole idea of
creating machines with affect be a wrong turn? In John
McCarthy’s story, “The Robot and the Baby,” a nanny
saves a baby by staying calm but the mother panics
(McCarthy 2003). The story successfully makes the point
that it is not useful for all robots to have (all?) emotions.
Disruptive emotions, negative emotions, also cause war,
violence and hurt our families and society. Yet as the
discoveries across many fields show the potential for
positive technological influence on the state of human
Kern, et al. 2008. Glucose metabolic changes in the prefrontal
cortex are associated with HPA axis response to a psychosocial
stressor, Psychoneuroendocrinology 33: 517–529.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J., Loving, T., Stowell J., Malarkey, W.,
Lemeshow, S., Dickinson, S., and Glaser, R. 2005. Hostile
marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and
wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62-12:13771384.
Masona,
C.
2012.
Affective
Computing
and
Interaction:Psychological,
Cognitive
and
Neuroscience
Perspectives, International Journal of Synthetic Emotions
3(1):64-69.
Masonb, C. 2012. Giving Robots Compassion. Conference on
Science and Compassion, Telluride, Colorado,July 22. Accessed
September
9,
2014.
(www.researchgate.net/publication/260230014 Giving_Robots_
20
Compassionson_C._Mason_Conference_on_Science_and_Comp
assion_Poster_Session_Telluride_Colorado_2012).
Masonc, C. 2010. The Logical Road to Human Level AI Leads to
A Dead End. In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International
Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems,
SASO 2010, 312-316. Budapest, Hungary. IEEE Computer
Society. (doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/SASOW.2010.63)
McCarthy, J. 2002.
September 9, 2014.
The Robot and The Baby. Accessed
(www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/robotandbaby.html)
Meaney, M.J. 2001. Maternal care, gene expression, and the
transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across
generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24:1161-1192.
Motzkin, J.C., Newman, J.P., Kiehl, K.A., and Koenigs, M. 2011.
Reduced Prefrontal Connectivity in Psychopathy, Journal of
Neuroscience 31-48:17348-17357.
Nass, C. and Moon, Y, 2000. Machines and Mindlessness: Social
Response to Computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56-1:81-103.
Reeves, B., and Nass, C. 1996. The Media Equation: How People
Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People
and Places. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wager, T. D., Davidson, M. L., Hughes, B. L., Lindquist M, A.,
and Ochsner, K. N. 2008. Prefrontal-subcortical pathways
mediating successful emotion regulation. Neuron 59:1037–1050.
Acknowledgments
We thank the AAAI office and our colleagues for all their
hard work in making this happen. We also thank the
tireless efforts of researchers around the world and across
disciplines who have made contributions to the future of
AI. Special thanks to SRI International and Bill Fenwick.
21