A study that shows that people want human attribution, rather than computer-generated? So passe! I'm more interested in how a computer/internet giant could use this information when knitting together crowd-sourced materials. It actually makes me think of the Google images, where you could tag images with a partner, and the more esoteric the tag you agreed upon, the more points you could get.
Human attribution is the idea that when a person puts a picture (or any other content, for that matter) online, they are much happier if a human responds (tag, comment, like, etc.) than if that response was computer generated (some programs can auto-tag photos). That shouldn't be such a weird idea, since we tend to reject robots and artificial intelligences, sometimes because they are too human (but not human enough for us to accept).
Over time, though, we may get used to having services like auto-tagging. In that case, we will move to different means of getting human attribution. Photos may become less important than they are now, because they move beyond sharing lives and into cataloging them. Videos may be the only medium left where we can prove that computers aren't the ones providing responses.
Its little computer-controlled items like this that will lead to a technology backlash. Eventually people will start giving up services like Facebook and MySpace because they just don't offer the same validation as in the past. And if enough services cut out validation for automation, maybe we will see regression to pre-technological times... maybe? Please?
No comments:
Post a Comment