Design × AI coffee meetup

If you work in the field of design or artificial intelligence and are interested in exploring the opportunities at their intersection, consider yourself invited to an informal coffee meetup on February 15, 10am at Brix in Amsterdam.

Erik van der Pluijm and myself have for a while now been carrying on a conversation about AI and design and we felt it was time to expand the circle a bit. We are very curious who else out there shares our excitement.

Questions we are mulling over include: How does the design process change when creating intelligent products? And: How can teams collaborate with intelligent design tools to solve problems in new and interesting ways?

Anyway, lots to chew on.

No need to sign up or anything, just show up and we’ll see what happens.

High-skill robots, low-skill workers

Some notes on what I think I understand about technology and inequality.

Let’s start with an obvious big question: is technology destroying jobs faster than they can be replaced? On the long term the evidence isn’t strong. Humans always appear to invent new things to do. There is no reason this time around should be any different.

But in the short term technology has contributed to an evaporation of mid-skilled jobs. Parts of these jobs are automated entirely, parts can be done by fewer people because of higher productivity gained from tech.

While productivity continues to grow, jobs are lagging behind. The year 2000 appears to have been a turning point. “Something” happened around that time. But no-one knows exactly what.

My hunch is that we’ve seen an emergence of a new class of pseudo-monopolies. Oligopolies. And this is compounded by a ‘winner takes all’ dynamic that technology seems to produce.

Others have pointed to globalisation but although this might be a contributing factor, the evidence does not support the idea that it is the major cause.

So what are we left with?

Historically, looking at previous technological upsets, it appears education makes a big difference. People negatively affected by technological progress should have access to good education so that they have options. In the US the access to high quality education is not equally divided.

Apparently family income is associated with educational achievement. So if your family is rich, you are more likely to become a high skilled individual. And high skilled individuals are privileged by the tech economy.

And if Piketty’s is right, we are approaching a reality in which money made from wealth rises faster than wages. So there is a feedback loop in place which only exacerbates the situation.

One more bullet: If you think trickle-down economics, increasing the size of the pie will help, you might be mistaken. It appears social mobility is helped more by decreasing inequality in the distribution of income growth.

So some preliminary conclusions: a progressive tax on wealth won’t solve the issue. The education system will require reform, too.

I think this is the central irony of the whole situation: we are working hard to teach machines how to learn. But we are neglecting to improve how people learn.

Move 37

Designers make choices. They should be able to provide rationales for those choices. (Although sometimes they can’t.) Being able to explain the thinking that went into a design move to yourself, your teammates and clients is part of being a professional.

Move 37. This was the move AlphaGo made which took everyone by surprise because it appeared so wrong at first.

The interesting thing is that in hindsight it appeared AlphaGo had good reasons for this move. Based on a calculation of odds, basically.

If asked at the time, would AlphaGo have been able to provide this rationale?

It’s a thing that pops up in a lot of the reading I am doing around AI. This idea of transparency. In some fields you don’t just want an AI to provide you with a decision, but also with the arguments supporting that decision. Obvious examples would include a system that helps diagnose disease. You want it to provide more than just the diagnosis. Because if it turns out to be wrong, you want to be able to say why at the time you thought it was right. This is a social, cultural and also legal requirement.

It’s interesting.

Although lives don’t depend on it, the same might apply to intelligent design tools. If I am working with a system and it is offering me design directions or solutions, I want to know why it is suggesting these things as well. Because my reason for picking one over the other depends not just on the surface level properties of the design but also the underlying reasons. It might be important because I need to be able to tell stakeholders about it.

An added side effect of this is that a designer working with such a system is be exposed to machine reasoning about design choices. This could inform their own future thinking too.

Transparent AI might help people improve themselves. A black box can’t teach you much about the craft it’s performing. Looking at outcomes can be inspirational or helpful, but the processes that lead up to them can be equally informative. If not more so.

Imagine working with an intelligent design tool and getting the equivalent of an AlphaGo move 37 moment. Hugely inspirational. Game changer.

This idea gets me much more excited than automating design tasks does.

Books I’ve read in 2016

I’ve read 32 books, which is four short of my goal and also four less than the previous year. It’s still not a bad score though and quality wise the list below contains many gems.

I resolved to read mostly books by women and minority authors. This lead to quite a few surprising experiences which I am certainly grateful for. I think I’ll continue to push myself to seek out such books in the year to come.

There are only a few comics in the list. I sort of fell off the comics bandwagon this year mainly because I just can’t seem to find a good place to discover things to read.

Anyway, here’s the list, with links to my reviews on Goodreads. A * denotes a particular favourite.

Favourite music albums of 2016

I guess this year finally marked the end of my album listening behaviour. Spotify’s Discover and Daily Mix features were the one-two punch that knocked it out. In addition I somehow stopped scrobbling to in March. It’s switched back on now but the damage is done.

So the data I do have is incomplete. I did still deliberately put on a number of albums this year. But I won’t post them in order of listens like I did last year. This is subjective, unsorted and hand-picked. I will even sneak in a few albums that were published towards the end of 2015.

My sources included Pitchfork’s list of best new albums which used to be how I discovered new music and still wields some influence. I cross-referenced with Spotify’s top songs of 2016.

So first Spotify tells me what to listen to and then it gives me a list of things I actually listened to. This is getting weird…

Anyway, here they are. A * marks a particular favourite.

  • A Tribe Called Quest – We Got It From Here… *
  • Solange – A Seat At the Table
  • Hamilton Leithauser + Rostam – I Had A Dream That You Were Mine
  • The Avalanches – Wildflower *
  • Blood Orange – Freetown Sound
  • Whitney – Light Upon the Lake
  • Car Seat Headrest – Teens Of Denial *
  • Chance The Rapper – Coloring Book *
  • Moodymann – DJ-Kicks *
  • Grimes – Art Angels *
  • Floating Points – Elaenia
  • The Range – Potential *
  • Sepalcure – Folding Time
  • Jamila Woods – HEAVN

Here’s a playlist which includes a couple of more albums if you want to have a listen.

A year of two crashes

A year ago today I was in Bali.

We spent the better part of December 2015 there. It wasn’t really a holiday, but we weren’t really working either. I was wrapping up a few final Hubbub things back then. But for the most part life was quiet. Very quiet. We would get up really early. We would buy some vegetables and things from a lady who would drive into town every morning with a load from the market.

I’d swim, exercise, meditate, have breakfast and do some work. Writing and reading mostly. By the end of the morning we would cook lunch. The major meal of the day. In the afternoon we wouldn’t do much of anything because of the heat. December is rainy season in Bali and it gets incredibly hot and humid. Towards dusk we would often take a walk. We would have an early light dinner and entertain ourselves with the antics of tokay geckos. We would turn in early.

Now I am writing this back in our home in Utrecht. In many ways my life has returned to the way it was before that month in Bali. But in other ways it has changed. I used to run a small agency and would be in the studio almost every day. Now I am freelancing and I split my time between working on site at clients, working from home and meeting up with people in town. I enjoy the variety.

I used to be in the business of designing games and playthings for learning and other purposes. Now I am back to my old vocation of interaction design and in theory I can and work on anything.

Towards the end of Hubbub’s run I felt boxed in. Now I feel like I can pursue whatever interests me.

Right now, under the banner of Eend I am helping the Dutch victim support foundation develop new digital services. I spend about three days a week working on site as part of cross-disciplinary agile team made up of a mix of internal and external people. It’s good, important work and I can contribute a lot.

The time that remains I divide between the usual freelancer things like admin, networking and so on, and developing a plan for a PhD.

I’ve been blogging on and off about intelligent design tools this year and that is no coincidence. I am considering going into research fulltime to work in that space. It is still early days but I am having fun reading up on the subject, writing, making plans, and talking to people in academia about it.

In between this ‘new normal’ and those quiet days in Bali was a year of two crashes. I basically started from scratch in many ways twice this year and I feel like it has helped me get reoriented.

Crash one.

In January we moved to Singapore. We would end up spending seven months there. In that time I joined a startup called ARTO. I helped build a team, develop a design and development process and acted as product manager and product designer. We launched a first version of the product in that period and we pushed out a couple of new features as well. The last thing I did was find a replacement for myself.

In between working on ARTO I taught a two-part engagement design workshop with Michael and helped Edo and his team build ArtHit. I got into running and ate my way through the abundance of amazing food Singapore has to offer.

Of all the things I enjoyed about Singapore, its cosmopolitanism has to be the absolute highlight. I worked with people from Myanmar, Malaysia, Vietnam and India. I made friends with people from many more places. Discovering the things we have in common and the things that set us apart was a continuous source of enjoyment.

And like that, just when we were getting settled and had gotten into a routine of sorts and started to feel at home it was time to go back to the Netherlands. (But not before spending a couple of weeks exploring Vietnam and Cambodia. More great food and gorgeous sights.)

Crash two.

It is weird to have culture shock in a town you’ve spent most of your life in but that was what it felt like for about the first month back in Utrecht. September felt very similar to January. I had no work and was networking like a madman and just playing the numbers game. Hoping I would bump into something. And of course, as it always does eventually, things worked out.

I consider myself blessed to be able to take these risks and more or less trust things will turn out okay. I know that if they don’t there are always people around me who will support me if worse comes to worse.

2017 looks to be a year of more stability although one can never be sure. World events as well as occurrences in my personal circles this year have shown me once again there are no guarantees in life.

But I plan to build on what I’ve started these past few months and see where it takes me. It is time to shift from orienting to deciding and acting. And for the foreseeable future I plan to keep the current ‘system’ running.

So no more crashes for the time being. Although I am sure there will come a time when the need for it arises again.

Waiting for the smart city

Nowadays when we talk about the smart city we don’t necessarily talk about smartness or cities.

I feel like when the term is used it often obscures more than it reveals.

Here a few reasons why.

To begin with, the term suggests something that is yet to arrive. Some kind of tech-enabled utopia. But actually, current day cities are already smart to a greater or lesser degree depending on where and how you look.

This is important because too often we postpone action as we wait for the smart city to arrive. We don’t have to wait. We can act to improve things right now.

Furthermore, ‘smart city’ suggests something monolithic that can be designed as a whole. But a smart city, like any city, is a huge mess of interconnected things. It resists topdown design.

History is littered with failed attempts at authoritarian high-modernist city design. Just stop it.

Smartness should not be an end but a means.

I read ‘smart’ as a shorthand for ‘technologically augmented’. A smart city is a city eaten by software. All cities are being eaten (or have been eaten) by software to a greater or lesser extent. Uber and Airbnb are obvious examples. Smaller more subtle ones abound.

The question is, smart to what end? Efficiency? Legibility? Controllability? Anti-fragility? Playability? Liveability? Sustainability? The answer depends on your outlook.

These are ways in which the smart city label obscures. It obscures agency. It obscures networks. It obscures intent.

I’m not saying don’t ever use it. But in many cases you can get by without it. You can talk about specific parts that make up the whole of a city, specific technologies and specific aims.

Postscript 1

We can do the same exercise with the ‘city’ part of the meme.

The same process that is making cities smart (software eating the world) is also making everything else smart. Smart towns. Smart countrysides. The ends are different. The networks are different. The processes play out in different ways.

It’s okay to think about cities but don’t think they have a monopoly on ‘disruption’.

Postscript 2

Some of this inspired by clever things I heard Sebastian Quack say at Playful Design for Smart Cities and Usman Haque at ThingsCon Amsterdam.

Playful Design for Smart Cities

Earlier this week I escaped the miserable weather and food of the Netherlands to spend a couple of days in Barcelona, where I attended the ‘Playful Design for Smart Cities’ workshop at RMIT Europe.

I helped Jussi Holopainen run a workshop in which participants from industry, government and academia together defined projects aimed at further exploring this idea of playful design within the context of smart cities, without falling into the trap of solutionism.

Before the workshop I presented a summary of my chapter in The Gameful World, along with some of my current thinking on it. There were also great talks by Judith Ackermann, Florian ‘Floyd’ Müller, and Gilly Karjevsky and Sebastian Quack.

Below are the slides for my talk and links to all the articles, books and examples I explicitly and implicitly referenced throughout.

Adapting intelligent tools for creativity

I read Alper’s book on conversational user interfaces over the weekend and was struck by this paragraph:

“The holy grail of a conversational system would be one that’s aware of itself — one that knows its own model and internal structure and allows you to change all of that by talking to it. Imagine being able to tell Siri to tone it down a bit with the jokes and that it would then actually do that.”

His point stuck with me because I think this is of particular importance to creative tools. These need to be flexible so that a variety of people can use them in different circumstances. This adaptability is what lends a tool depth.

The depth I am thinking of in creative tools is similar to the one in games, which appears to be derived from a kind of semi-orderedness. In short, you’re looking for a sweet spot between too simple and too complex.

And of course, you need good defaults.

Back to adaptation. This can happen in at least two ways on the interface level: modal or modeless. A simple example of the former would be to go into a preferences window to change the behaviour of your drawing package. Similarly, modeless adaptation happens when you rearrange some panels to better suit the task at hand.

Returning to Siri, the equivalence of modeless adaptation would be to tell her to tone it down when her sense of humor irks you.

For the modal solution, imagine a humor slider in a settings screen somewhere. This would be a terrible solution because it offers a poor mapping of a control to a personality trait. Can you pinpoint on a scale of 1 to 10 your preferred amount of humor in your hypothetical personal assistant? And anyway, doesn’t it depend on a lot of situational things such as your mood, the particular task you’re trying to complete and so on? In short, this requires something more situated and adaptive.

So just being able to tell Siri to tone it down would be the equivalent of rearranging your Photoshop palets. And in a next interaction Siri might carefully try some humor again to gauge your response. And if you encourage her, she might be more humorous again.

Enough about funny Siri for now because it’s a bit of a silly example.

Funny Siri, although she’s a bit of a Silly example, does illustrate another problem I am trying to wrap my head around. How does an intelligent tool for creativity communicate its internal state? Because it is probabilistic, it can’t be easily mapped to a graphic information display. And so our old way of manipulating state, and more specifically adapting a tool to our needs becomes very different too.

It seems to be best for an intelligent system to be open to suggestions from users about how to behave. Adapting an intelligent creative tool is less like rearranging your workspace and more like coordinating with a coworker.

My ideal is for this to be done in the same mode (and so using the same controls) as when doing the work itself. I expect this to allow for more fluid interactions, going back and forth between doing the work at hand, and meta-communication about how the system supports the work. I think if we look at how people collaborate this happens a lot, communication and meta-communication going on continuously in the same channels.

We don’t need a self-aware artificial intelligence to do this. We need to apply what computer scientists call supervised learning. The basic idea is to provide a system with example inputs and desired outputs, and let it infer the necessary rules from them. If the results are unsatisfactory, you simply continue training it until it performs well enough.

A super fun example of this approach is the Wekinator, a piece of machine learning software for creating musical instruments. Below is a video in which Wekinator’s creator Rebecca Fiebrink performs several demos.

Here we have an intelligent system learning from examples. A person manipulating data in stead of code to get to a particular desired behaviour. But what Wekinator lacks and what I expect will be required for this type of thing to really catch on is for the training to happen in the same mode or medium as the performance. The technology seems to be getting there, but there are many interaction design problems remaining to be solved.


I am back in the Netherlands for over seven weeks now but I am still busy running around the country reconnecting to people and telling them about my experiences in Singapore.

It was great.

I really did manage to reconsider a lot of things and got reoriented, about which more later.

Learned a lot about myself and others by meeting and working with lots of new people from different backgrounds.

And I do miss the city already. The iron-clad guarantee of sun and warmth. Many places to explore offering lots of surprising experiences. And on every street corner, amazing affordable food.

I will miss Singapore, and I am thankful for all it has done for me in the brief period I got to call it my home.

Below are some photos. More are over at Flickr. Happy scrolling and maybe don’t look at these if you’re hungry.

Continue reading Singapore