Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:32:02.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Artificial intelligence as craftwork

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2010

Seth Chaiklin
Affiliation:
Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
Jean Lave
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

There are two ways in which the visualization processes we are all interested in may be ignored; one is to grant to the scientific mind what should be granted to the hands, to the eyes and to the signs; the other is to focus exclusively on the signs qua signs, without considering the mobilization of which they are but the fine edge.

(Latour, 1986, p. 26)

The goal of research in artificial intelligence (AI) is to design runnable computer programs that replicate some aspect of human behavior. A common first step in the design process is to represent in some form the behavior to be replicated. In this chapter we consider representational practice in AI as the practical activity of two researchers working together at a whiteboard (i.e., a white “blackboard” used with colored markers). In locating the science there, we aim to bring into focus its character as socially organized craftsmanship – the crafting together of a complex machinery made of heterogeneous materials, mobilized in the service of developing a theory of mind. In this effort we align ourselves with recent developments in the investigation and respecification of science as practice, beginning with GarfinkePs recommendations (1967) that we take sociology's subject matter to be the identifying details of particular forms of practical action, and Lave's analyses (1988) of the social and material structuring of specifically situated activity systems. Prior ethnomethodological studies of science orient us as well to the centrality of representational devices in the structuring of science practice (see, e.g., Garfinkel, Lynch, & Livingston, 1981; Lynch, 1985; Lynch, Livingston, & Garfinkel, 1983; Livingston, 1986; Lynch & Woolgar, 1990), as does Latour's notion of inscription devices (1986).

Type
Chapter
Information
Understanding Practice
Perspectives on Activity and Context
, pp. 144 - 178
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×