Presentation schedule and guests

Posted in Uncategorized on December 7, 2010 by Kio

Monday 13th
Chris Alden, Ania, Michael
Nicholas, Hana, Jeff
Chris Allick

Guests:
Rita King and Josuha Fouts
Joanne McNeil, also here

Wed 15th (3:30)
Aaron, MMC, Candice
Luis & Patrick
Minette, Sebastian, Poram

Guests:
Sherri Wasserman, Thinc Design
Tarikh Korula, Uncommon Projects
Charles Pax, MakerBot

Notes on final paper & presentation (thanks Patrick)

Advertisements

Dec 6: reading and response questions

Posted in Uncategorized on November 27, 2010 by Kio

GROUP 1: Chris Allick, Michael E, Liesje, Ania, Sebastian, Candice, Aaron, Poram
You are reading excerpts from The Big Con, by David Maurer, which I’ll hand out in class.

Response questions:
In email: What is the most interesting element of a successful con, for you, and why?
In class: Be prepared to explain to the group the elements of a successful con and outline the basic procedure, the players, and techniques.

GROUP 2: Minette, Jeff, MMC, Luis, Patrick, Chris Alden, Hana, Nicholas.
You are are reading short pieces about hoaxes and impostors. There’s one handout, plus links below. Read at least one hoax and one impostor.

Hoaxes:
PT Barnum’s account of the Feejee Mermaid hoax
The Mechanical Turk / Automaton Chess Player
Wikipedia actually does this justice. [Note: You can skip the section on “popular culture” and what follows.]

Impostors:
Frederic Bourdain
Ferdinand Waldo Demara (HANDOUT)

Response Questions:
In email: What is one technique in hoaxes or imposture that you find especially devious and interesting, and tell me why.
In class: Be prepared to explain the environment, players, technique, and apprehension of one of the hoaxes to the group for discussion; likewise, be prepared to report on one impostor and their story, technique, special skills and how they got busted to the group for discussion.

Nov 15: Delusions

Posted in Uncategorized on November 8, 2010 by Kio

Reading:
Handout, Ch 3 & 10 from Method in Madness.

Response questions:
Please note and explain something you find especially interesting and something you find confusing or questionable. Also briefly note your thoughts on how the idea of delusional perception could be useful in manipulating the experience of authenticity.

Initial project ideas due in writing and for class discussion (see previous post for more detail).

Final projects milestones

Posted in Uncategorized on November 6, 2010 by Kio

So you have it all crystal clear, in one place, here is the schedule of final projects milestones, including classtime devoted to discussion. These are in the main Nov-Dec syllabus, as well, integrated with readings/guests.

Nov 8: Group brainstorming

Nov 15: INITIAL PROJECT IDEAS DUE for workshop discussion. This should be a short written explanation of the project, goals, anticipated challenges. Hopes, dreams, etc. You’ll get feedback in class and in writing from me.

Nov 29: FINAL PROJECT PLAN DUE with workshop in class. Written project plan revised based on previous feedback, plus step by step approach and concrete plan for field testing of the project.
YOU SHOULD HAVE ALSO STARTED MAKING BY NOW!

Dec 6: FINAL PROJECT, FIRST ITERATION DUE, including documentation of project, successes, failures, your field testing and your plans for second iteration based on what you learned.

Dec 13: Final project presentations in class, group 1
Dec 15: Final project presentations in class, group 2

Dec 16, 9AM: Final project documentation/field writeup due as a PDF in my email.
This deadline is 100% ironclad. If you don’t turn in your work by the deadline, you won’t get a grade, because I have to turn in grades.

Nov 8: responsive machines

Posted in Uncategorized on November 3, 2010 by Kio

Guests:
Eyal Ohana
Laura Greig

Project ideas discussion

Nov 1: robots!

Posted in readings/assignments on October 25, 2010 by Kio

Guest: Heather Knight (first part of class)

Reading:
This week, you’ll work in teams of two. Each team will read a different scholarly study (or 2 if they’re short) on an aspect of humanoid robotics. In class you and your partner will present what you’ve read to the rest of the class for discussion. Plan on about 5-7 minutes to present.

Part A: reading response (one for each team). Note one useful finding in what you’ve read, and one question that you feel the article did not answer, or a further question that the article made you want to find an answer for.

Part B: presenting to class. You’ll need to report on these elements:
-The researchers’ questions
-The researchers’ findings
-Their testing methods–what they did and interesting ways they found to elicit useful responses from their test subjects.
-Your assessment of their methods and findings.

Teams: [article PDFs will be posted here on Tues pm]
Chris Allick and MMC
>Hey, I’m over here
Video observation elicits motor interference

Chris Alden and Poram
All robots are not created equal
Exploring the aesthetic range for humanoid robots

LV and Aaron
Robots in the wild
Making robots emotion-sensitive

Nicholas and Patrick
Intersubjectivity in human-agent interaction

Minette and Ania
Nonverbal intimacy as a benchmark for human-robot interaction
Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot

Michael and Jeff
Mentalizing to non-human agents by children
Social interaction between robots, avatars, and humans

Liesje and Candice
Emotional movements in social games with robots
Robots as embodied beings

Sebastian and Hana
What is human?

10/25 Dead or Alive (+Aram Bartholl from F.A.T. Lab)

Posted in Uncategorized on October 19, 2010 by Kio

1. Your short paper assignment is due. I handed out the assignment in class, and here’s the doc:
FR_assign_2

2. Reading: We’ve talked about the nuances of humanness, animacy, sentience (more on that with robots!), and this week we’re considering the distinction between alive and dead. You’re reading two chapters from Richard Greene and K. Silem Mohammad, Zombies, Vampires and Philosophy (handout). I also encourage you to watch a Zombie or Vampire movie this week, but it’s not required.

Response questions:
–The authors are using various pop cultural representations of the condition of “undeadness” to think about humanness and personhood.
–What are some of their criteria and distinctions that you find useful in thinking about what ‘aliveness’ might mean in the context of the illusion of authenticity–and why?
–Are there criteria or distinctions that you radically disagree with or find inadequate–and why?

3. Take a quick look at Aram‘s site. His work will enrich our discussion in a few weeks when we start talking about unreal and real environments.