#acmdis2017

For the record, here is the Vorticism-inspired manifesto poster we brought to the Designing Interactive Systems conference in Edinburgh.

Find the full paper here: http://dis2017.org/provocations-works-in-progress/ 

MAF+SF (from team Edgebits) won the ‘best provocation award‘ at DIS2017 for the *genius* design of the Quantum Wand (Qwand) Problem Space Machine. A few lucky DIS-goers had the opportunity to wave the Qwand at their innermost beliefs. The dynamic duo did so by asking each participant (n=13) to:  

Think of a fact or notion they truly believe is true - Suspended Truth (ST);

Write the ST on a Quantum Particle (QP), which, for the sake of this experiment, has been stretched to a ping-pong ball size;

Hold the truth with the Qwand as one would hold an egg with a spoon;

Make sure that the Green Probability Field (GPF) is green indeed and magnetically soft; i.e. the quantum robins on the GPF must all point at the Magnetic North.

Throw the truth at one of the ten Multiverse Tunnels (MuTu) - the red vessels in the picture above.

=> If the particle enters one of the MuTus, the truth probability score is equal to the number written at the bottom of the MuTu (from 1 to 10); else the truth is Pure Fiction (+/- )

EMERGING FINDINGS

We used a thematic analysis approach to extract emerging patterns from the reported STs; the analysis has been carried out by MAF alone to make it absolutely clear that the process is utterly unscientific; by doing so, we have identified  four ST categories: Mega – for Greater Truths; Scientific – for falsifiable truths; Existential – for personal truths; Political – for civic matters.The probability scores range from 0 (Perfect Lie) to 10 (Perfect Truth). The results are summarised in the table above and briefly discussed below.

Mega was by far the most popular category (38% of STs); followed by Political (31%), and Existential (24%). Only 7% of our participants were bothered with Scientific truths, and quite frankly the results were inconclusive (”Fat Chance” for Evolution). Crucially, Truth got a whopping 10 score, hence it can be confidently said that Truth is Truth. As suspected, Love scores only slightly better than “Fat Chance”, whereas the birthday of one of our participants must have been an anagraphic mistake (3.0 = Alternative Fact). The Labour Manifesto scored a comfortable 7.0, whereas Corbyn Galactic Emperor got a strong and stable 8.0, leaving Unbrexit in a grey area with a 6.0; Finally the Future, I am afraid, is “Pure Fiction” and so are Matt and Jim’s PhDs (*in full accordance to our rigorous ethics review process, participants’ names have been pseudonymised).

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I attended a workshop at DIS2017 on New Value Transactions: Understanding and Designing for Distributed Autonomous Organisations. It was a design oriented workshop on how value is (or might be) exchanged via blockchains and smart contracts.  

The day started with a discussion of several existing blockchain projects, including BitBarista (a coffee machine that shows the provenance of the coffee it uses), Decentraland (which uses blockchain to record ownership in VR), Terra0 (an ‘autonomous forest’), and Faircoin (a cryptocurrency supported by a ‘cooperative grassroots movement’). 

Ten position papers were presented. Mine was on Trustless Education? A Blockchain System for University Grades.  

The afternoon was spent working on clustering what we saw as problems and opportunities in this area. Topics included Trust, Participation, Literacies, New Organisations, and Governance. We then worked in small groups looking at value transactions in particular contexts and what the role of smart contracts and distributed autonomous organisations might be. I was in a group looking at food. We considered school meals and how blockchain technology might be used in the supply chain or within schools themselves to produce healthier and more sustainable meals or to minimise and redistribute waste. 

The workshop was interesting and helpful. My thoughts following the workshop are:

There are interesting opportunities for value exchange with blockchain beyond payments. Many academics seem interested in using blockchain to support/enable autonomy of ‘things’ and animals. Many also see potential in the exchange of social value and technology for public good. 

We should not just think about automation with smart contracts but also support for forms of human interaction. One interesting area is consent by voting- what happens if one needs peer consent to turn on the air conditioning or to maintain a ‘vegetarian identity’? 

We should consider the temporalities of blockchain. We should consider the “waitings” that happen during execution; what kinds of interaction can happen across slow technology and what happens while you wait? There’s also a tension (or confusion) between the permanency of smart contracts and a presumption of technical/contractual change. 

New forms of power in this domain will arise from governance and technical literacy rather than ownership. Academics are optimistic and idealistic when it comes to the potential of this technology, which may serve to bring positive potentials in this area, but might also mean we’re blind to negatives. 

Its difficult to consider where blockchains may fit within existing organisations. Innovation will probably happen outside of these contexts. The technology is also difficult to understand (as Chris Speed put it, its difficult to hold more than 5 of the 7 apples at the same time). This difficulty is problematic for designers and academics, and even more so for broader publics- these systems can’t be transparent and ‘trustless’ if we don’t understand them.