(no subject)

[wolven7]

I received notes on my abstract, in the mail, today.

Here is the Abstract:

'TITLE "Strange Things Happen at the One Two Point: The Implications of Autonomous Created
Intelligence & Cybernetics in SF Media"

'ABSTRACT: By its very nature, Science Fiction media has often concerned itself with advances in
human enhancement as well as the creation of various autonomous, thinking, non-human beings.
Unfortunately, since the initial proffering of the majority interpretation of Mary Shelly's seminal work,
most SF media has taken the standpoint that to enhance or to explore the creation of intelligences, in
this way, is doomed to failure, thus recapitulating the myths of Daedalus and of Prometheus and of
Lucifer, again and again. What we see and are made to fear are the uprisings of the robots or the
artificial neural networks, rather than discussing and respecting the opportunity for a non-human
intelligence to arise and demand rights.

'In this work, I make use of specific films, books, and television shows to explore the
philosophical and cultural implications of an alternate interpretation of not only Frankenstein, but of
the whole of the field of science fiction. In the first part I argue that it isn't humanity's attempts to “play
god” that cause our failures, but rather our refusal or inability to pay attention to our circumstances, to
take responsibility for our creations, and to learn from the warnings and mistakes of those who went
before us. With this recognition in mind, we can move on to accepting and respecting the fundamental
otherness of the intelligences we may either create or cause to be created, all while seeking to bridge
that otherness, and come to mutual understanding.

'To accomplish this project, I present a picture of the world in which technologically-integrated
and -enhanced humans are not only possible, but are necessary in order to come to the aforementioned
understanding of the kinds of concerns which would be relevant to a non-human machine intelligence.
As humans have evolved, their concerns have become those of biological creatures with biologically
directed needs. Food, shelter, emotional comfort, and stability are needs which would not necessarily
occur to an intelligence without the organic component. It would therefore fall to humans to A) Initially
recognise the concerns of such an intelligence; B) Countenance and concretise said concerns, in the
understanding of other humans; and C) Create a system of interaction through which human concerns
were conveyed to these new intelligences, not as primary, but as co-equal.

'In all fictional considerations of non-human, and specifically machine intelligence, there is an
element of fear of that which we have created. This horror at being “replaced” or “made obsolete”
drives us to regard robots and autonomous created intelligences as nothing more than tools to be used,
an operational mode which leads to the assumption that machines cannot have rights or even be
considered as conscious minds. This assumption begs the question, in the extreme. It is my contention
that, with a proper formulation of the rights and responsibilities of and to both human and non-human
persons—with consideration for the necessary variance of concerns within different compositions of
intelligences—an understanding may be reached wherein our future societies account for not only
human needs and development, but those of all intelligences, whatever form they may take.'

The Notes are as follows:

'"Dear Damien,

'Thanks again for your submission to your conference.

'Since we were only working with abstracts, our main concern was with
a) whether the proposed paper advanced the objectives articulated in the
Machine Question Symposium CFP.
b) the general quality of the writing e.g. argument style and contact to
literature.

'The reviewer's evaluations were not able to get into the details of
your research, because that is still forthcoming. However, in
addition to the numeric rating and categorical assessment of
fit-to-symposium, we did also solicit and receive brief commentaries
on your abstract, please find below:

'"An interesting perspective: arguing that science fiction biases our
view, but doesn't really address why our culture has chosen to do that
& ultimately comes back to common robot-ethics themes based on
sympathy rather than reasoning. Not bad but not a very novel
perspective. Writing style is a bit redundant / informal e.g. SF
media s/b SF, repeated again & again, etc."

'"This abstract simply restates the problematic of the machine question,
namely that we need to consider the moral status of the machine. It
does not, however, provide any argument toward this end. I would
suggest that the author formulate a thesis that addresses the machine
question and then sketch an argument to achieve this objective.'"

I wanted to place these in a place where I would see them and look at them, and objectively assess them. Because my first response was "What the fuck do you mean 'Not a Novel Perspective?!'" Then I spiraled from there into a a kind of six-voiced Imposter Syndrome-and-evil-genius kind of fugue, with things like "I haven't written in an academic style in too long," "I'm not professional enough," "I'm not interestingly original enough," and "I'm a fraud & they'll all find out" being paired with "Did these people even read my outline?!" and "How does anyone presume to comprehend anything, anymore?!"

So that wasn't healthy.

So I named my fears and I assessed each one. Remember, when the Litany says "Face your fear," and "Only I Will Remain," it means that you must look what you're afraid of straight in the eye, and let it know that you are Far greater than it can be. That you will take its horrors, and terrors, and you will weave them into your sinews and into your very Essence.

It's all I can do, some days.

But, regardless of how the rest of my day went, teaching always seems to lift my spirits.

Okay. E-mails in regards to potential reimbursement for travel to England: Sent.

To Do: Grade Tests.

Teach Zen.

Obtain my and unknownbinaries' passports.

Grade Papers.

Find a new place to live.

Time to go home

Comments

[opalblack.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, allowing that my engagement with academia went south when I almost died from malnutrition, the argument is generally presented in the *paper* rather than in the abstract. The abstract is just for stating in brief the subject that will be argued and the argument that will be advanced, with an overview of techniques/methods and sources applied. It could maybe be a little tighter, but the abstract does what an abstract is meant to do.

Sorry for sticking my nose in while you're still raw, but that bit about "It does not, however, provide any argument toward this end." kind of got up said proboscis a little, because... that's not what an abstract DOES.

As to the other criticisms, I'm not qualified, but here's my oar anyhow. I do find the question of "why our culture has chosen to do that" an interesting one, refer back to my thoughts on zombies as an expression of fear of youth culture, but I think that's a work unto itself. "Common robot-ethics themes" seems to me to be part of the point, if I understood the abstract correctly, qua challenging those common themes and assumptions. Developing and advancing robot-ethics necessarily demands exploration of the current landscape, so I'm not sure I understand that particular objection.

Side-notedly, if you have skype or somesuch (as I no longer have the zomg phone credit ocean for lengthy overseas calls), I would love to talk ethics with you in the near future. Also, to discuss consulting fees.

[kitsuchan.livejournal.com]

As someone currently in the academic world, here's my take. You still got in, yes? So it's actually good that you got the feedback at all. Now you know what people are going to be asking you about, and the way that they're going to view your presentation, so you can tailor it to address this viewpoint while still making your argument. They've basically handed you a quick guide to infiltrating their group and winning them over. Now you can think about how you would answer if these come up doing the Q&A after the talk. If someone says: "Your argument that science fiction biases our view is an interesting perspective, but I didn't feel like you really addressed why our culture has chosen to do that... can you expand on that a little?" what will you say? How about: "How is your argument different from the common robot-ethics themes based on sympathy rather than reasoning?" Usually it's better to try and work these answers into the paper itself, so that during the Q&A you can say, "Well, as I stated on page 15, most robot ethics themes fail to incorporate the issue of oatmeal toppings" or whatever (I'm hungry).

I agree with opalblack that your abstract is fine as far as abstracts go and does offer an argument. It does seem like, from the comments, that both commenters (these are from two different people, right?) want you to have a clearly articulated argument and a statement of how this argument is different from (or at least adds to) other views on the subject. This is why so many talks have one or two slides just summarizing the state of the field and then saying how this talk departs from that. I find that section boring, but it is the easiest way to get that done. That and the name-checking-- who are the three names most likely to get dropped during the Q&A? Make sure you can say how you are building on or departing from their work. Sometimes this stuff is kind of stupid, but for now the main thing to focus on is getting your message out there.

The writing thing isn't something to feel like a fraud about. Some places are stricter than others. It sounds like you'll want to err on the side of formality for this one, and it might be useful to have someone who isn't as clued-in to SF edit it for you, so that they can notice where something that doesn't make to sense to non-SF fans pops up.

[opalblack.livejournal.com]

mmmm oatmeal