Currently thinking about narrowing down the adventures I embark on. While writing to explain why I chose the project for the introduction, I synthesized that I am interested broadly in approachability so HRI and HCI have an important place in my path, and how design aids or deflects from better, meaningful, productive connections.

Knowing our tools and technology might be the key to bridging fields and interests together.  In a small world, paths cross.

we do research and search in order to do Research.

The difference between inter, trans and multi is important and it situates the perspective for the different stages of research. If the future is hybrid, Inherently hybrid thinking peeps and disciplines will have more opportunities as well as more decisions to make, and choose a path down the chaos of discovery.

"...technologies can offer valuable materials with which to ask new questions about design, and to generate new insights about the built environment." (Cardoso 2019) ML as a way of discovery and asking new questions.

As per usual one a day is like a year. new knowledge, traveling through the wormholes of knowledge one can find here on campus.

navigating the currents at the moment, ML, HRI and a potential research experiment.

digital, physical and interaction.

Technology, the physical objects encompass and encapsule the software so in a way you are gathering more, holding more doing more, and it gives you more possibilities.

The aim of the research project might be to develop an end-to-end pipeline and then analyze it according to HRI and HRC, the project is not just about automation but about reflecting on the perception and process of it. 

Vernelle's book launch was a nice trough back to our inquiry class, the book is a tangible example of how she intertwines disciplines. The discussion panel highlighted the care, attention, and sensibility that define her work. I resonated with the struggle of entering the computational design field, the challenge as Vernelle frames it, is to throw ourselves into the work and that happens to be the solution too.

Her advocacy for a playful approach to inquiry made me reflect on my own approach too. Sometimes certain questions require a willingness to experiment and explore. A key takeaway was the idea of pulling threads, classifying them, encoding knowledge only when necessary, and resisting the rigidity trap. As Vernelle pointed out, seriousness seems almost violent in certain scenarios. 

Bridging ideas and fields, and uncovering invisible questions require both analytical thinking and intuition. The discussion taps into how the different points of view help us reflect on complex topics from different angles, showing how important is to critically engage and reflect on what we learn. The book is a clear example of how a compilation of multiple works can be framed and analyzed under a lens that helps to shape our understanding of complex approaches.

ChatGPT said: You recognize that technology’s value increases with interaction but critique its exclusivity. You propose a creative intervention that bridges expertise and play. 

and it made me recall concepts of opacity and transparency from technological process. I wrote this in an email almost  one month ago:

I like the idea of opacity and how the words might put you in a different way of thinking. The prison metaphor is powerful, and I’ve been reflecting on my own experience uncovering the “black box” of technologies I once passively used as an architect. Learning how CAD systems and computer graphics work, was transformative. It mirrored McLuhan’s idea that “we shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.” Understanding algorithms expanded not only my skills but also my approach to design problems.

Regarding being swept away by technology, I see three groups: those who explore and push boundaries, those who adopt tools pragmatically without questioning them, and those who fall behind. I like to think I’m in the first group, though I approach new tools with curiosity tempered by skepticism. I find myself curious but resisting because I feel I'm in no position to be the one on the front lines yet.

Now I think I have had it in me all along, the approachable interaction idea, I wouldn't say diluting complexities but maybe making more amicable, enticing that could potentially spark joy and curiosity, change and critique.

A couple of things building one on top of the other...

Multiple questions and the answer keeps being exploration, the technicalities are part of the process but not part of the outcome I want to show?

I've been dealing with the idea of play, the concept, and how it affects the way we interact. I have a different approach to each subject this semester and finally, they are falling into the place where they belong.

HRI might inform on how the big ideas they deal with are challenged by design, how receptive of machines are we, and how the novelty effect has a big role in how we agree to and accept technology.

ML in classification as a tool of analysis but in the generative mode for chances of exploration; Code as a machine language(go figure) to be able to communicate and tweak these mini black boxes we interact with every day ie: software, machines;  Architectural robotics as the playground for discovery and experiments and pre-thesis is the organizing and reflexive space that encompasses it all but allows time for reflection and reading and writing.  

Is it all about perception? how do we greet the things we interact with have a repercussion on how positive or negative the outcome and interaction might be? what other factors we should be anticipating for?

ps. Backup backup backup, you never know when a motherboard decides to suddenly die

ps2. if you have something ready, submit it why would you have to wait to show your work?

Novelty and results.. isn't it funny how work, code, and process often get overlooked? 

While working through stuff the mini accomplishments along the week are what keep me/us going right? 

We think, we produce something, test it, iterate it, explain it, get feedback, and better it.

on robots:

HRI is making me face some different kinds of questions since the field is concerned with understanding the interactions. That purpose is the way they go about things, the metrics, statistics, and depiction of bigger concepts trying to generalize and understand the trend and means. Concluding perception data, but why? Is HRI's agenda-pushing robots and machines into our lives with higher acceptance rates? or are we concerned about designing for human perception, comfort, and acceptance? or both?

on fabrication:

and how our mental model works in favor and against us... while developing the prototypes for my end-of-the-arm expansion kit (ha) for the ABB IRB 120 aka babs, the whole process, frictions, discovery, and iteration made me wonder about how our mental model adapts and how it is more tangible when we are fabricating something, it's interesting how easy we can err, but also how quickly we can catch the error. Hands-on the material, with a synchronized mind that starts to work seamlessly but there is labor and coordination and planning involved there.

on perception:

and concepts that are way better explored by experience: photography and explanatory gadgets?

During my class on pragmatic photography, it was clear to see how practicing and experimenting accelerate the learning process. It demystifies objects, features, and technology that we might be using without giving it a second thought. ISO, aperture, shutter speed. All metrics that center on light and how the camera captures the images, it is easier to understand by trying it rather than just reading about it. Also the explainable gadgets from Smokey? elite.

on generative text:

With the computer-generated workshop insights, it was interesting to understand the history of it. Remember that computation is something we have been thinking and tinkering with for not so much time but it definitely has a lot of outputs. Being aware of the context, time, and agenda behind some developments is useful to situate and understand those projects. Got particularly intrigued by Christopher Strachey's Love Letters from 1953. In code, programs, and tools the context is embedded but looking back on these projects we can really appreciate how time has changed more than just the tools but our understanding and relationship with some more universal concepts. Was love more corny in the '60s?

During the book launch I was struck by the fact that computation is not just ml, gen ai.. we've been doing this for quite some time people. Don't get confused history is here to ground us.

on black boxes and computational design thinking:

Understanding the concepts and the contexts, and how we approach the technology complexities from the design side of things is intriguing. Dealing with a black box or onion peeling our way with it.

Curiosity puts us in very tough positions, where we have access to a lot of knowledge but it is locked. The program now seems like a key to unlock all this possibilities, but the technophilic environment makes it both challenging and alluring. Ultimately we are trying to do computation and not get stuck in computarization.

Life balance, sparks back... skill developing and figuring all out, time and how that makes pieces fall into place, hands-on experimentation over the week.

During break life balance, and working felt easier. Classes and uni commitments definitely take up space in the schedule. I worked on a couple of projects:

• Integrated a couple of ideas into my unity project and ended up with a game for last semester's grammar.  Understanding unity workflow is tricky but once you get what you are missing bugs become obvious and easier to track and fix. 

• Did a pragmatic photography experimentation with myself as a subject and I liked the results, working on my terms and with myself opens possibilities of discovery, acceptance, and inquiry.

• Analog testing and tool development for the upcoming robotics project were fun too. The first part of the project usually involves a lot of problem-solving, testing, and analyzing what I want to encode/replicate/develop. We draw inspiration from life encode it and understand it programmatically when we are able to integrate it in a project, whether computational or not, there is always a synthesis and iteration.

• A slow approach made the e-waste scanner successfully complete a new scan. Once the first barrier goes down it's way easier to experiment with the output, even faster with code.

Doubting and wrapping up the break...

The independent study is getting more in shape every time I work on it, it's exciting, and hopefully, the setup is robust enough to make adjustments on the flight while running the experiments. Currently preparing for bubbles and sand explorations, tool development, and algorithmic thinking to encode movement and play into the actions of the robot.

Getting back to pre-thesis is also nice, all doubts and insecurity about current interests and explorations vanish when I get exposed to all the possibilities and accomplishments that took place before me.

Coherence, sensibility, and sanity? reasonableness? (sensatez), following a reason without being deceitful. There are some values that I don't want to lose sight of. I'm exploring and learning but I don't want to get myself boxed into one worldview, one approach. There is richness in the uncertainty even when employers might not be able to see that straight away...

Situating, scope, territory. the main interest and the sprinkles...

For the pre-thesis approach, I think I'm still focusing on the exploration and developing skills around it. The driver is curiosity and the sprinkles all the skills I've been gathering and the ideas thrown at me.

Architectural robotic exploration, with sprinkles of hri, ml, curatorial practices, analyses, and self-reflection.

Readings..

Figuring stuff up is both nerve racking and relieving, the mini accomplishments during the process balance out the uncertainty that we have to deal with. 

This week I read a couple text about Critical Practices, Critical Making, Reflective Design, Research through Design. The focus might be about thinking and doing, the constant tug of war that we can do with our projects, iteration definitely encourages that. But being mindful of the pace and space for reflection is useful in the longterm.

Sometimes it feels like iteration might consume my time and energy, but every little breakthrough is and aha moment that fuels me to keep on going.

On talks, workshops, and projects..

Project and expositions, prototyping and making, hands-on experiences definitely different than trying to figure out something and cannot see the issue/error/ bug

The refunct media workshop was an experience, finding this old tech and making connections from device to device got me thinking about the exquisite corpse. Maybe cadaver is the right word? Super fun experience, movement images, sound, and hacking lure us into engaging with this strange connection of devices, those connections are different from iteration to iteration. Through code, cable, signals, drivers, or tickles the idea was to create something that was looped and connected but developed by a group. The ensemble turns out nice, and it is a cool device/ installation that makes you wonder what's going on.

In Sohyun's workshop I really appreciated the parallels between digital and manual work, and the difference between the effort and attachment we have with our physical work is definitely measurable. I quite enjoyed both experiences but there is something about struggling to get something working that is embedded when we think and do with our hands. That connection is faster.

Even when talks are unexpected I enjoy attending and learning about work that wasn't on my radar before.

Diffuse composites from the scanner and robot movements are both outcomes and processes of the week's work.

IF I WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS:

Maybe in one sentence it's about better engaging with knowledge, making it more approachable, understandable and potentially opening doors to a wider audience.

Championing for knowledge and engagement because we need to understand it enough to make it better.

______________________________

how did I get here?

I suppose curiosity and the feeling that being inside the architecture department, surrounded by architectural thinking I sort of alinienated myself within the first month... I delved into the unknown and uncomfortable, code, tools, fabrication, computation. Everything was new and bright, enticing and welcoming, like waiting to be explored.

Over time I convinced myself with the argument, It has to be nice and enjoyable for me to understand and want to learn, I stand by that...

The black box concept also comes into discussion, what about it? probably the layers; some may say gray, some may call for opacity or transparency(depending on the context and understanding). The fact is that we have to tone down the unknown to proceed. High uncertainty levels tend to freeze progress.

Maybe going into the unknown and leaving architecture sitting in the corner was not a conscious decision, but I notice the exceptisism. I see how people flinch when they don't feel comfortable about the topic, but that lack of knowledge and enthusiasm for learning so the knowledge can be bridged, transferred and overall improved the working aspects of the field.

Right now I'm exploring how to encode our movements into a robotic arm, programing paths and seeing if that lands somewhere, but as prethesis is coming to an end, I think other than my areas of interest (HRI, HRC, COMPUTATION, RESEARCH, CLASSIC ML(classification), AND THE OVERALL TECHNOPHILIC LANDSCAPE) I have to integrate architecture or at least spatial sensibilities, it feels like there is no time to left behind for solely skills, I have to leverage them, learn them on the go.

I think I want to pause and bridge something. make it so it makes sense and can be replicable.

Not a fool's day:

As always, CMU days are more like years, and when you pause to think, it feels like a fever dream. It's amazing, it's crazy, it's a whirlwind, it's draining, and also so exciting and nourishing.

The preliminary mapping got my wheel spinning, and on top of that, the robotics bubble-making project had a breakthrough (finally). There are technicalities and nuances to the movement and interaction. But it's definitely fun to explore, iterate, and learn. Am I reverse engineering myself into knowledge? I mean, when something is not working, then I start to work backwards to solve it..

It's about the right lense, the experience, the accomplishments, and yes, probably problem solving, but the core is still curiosity.

deriving from Ai and angst?

Where does the line of just marketing and a good research question lie? Because for industry cool explorations might be beneficial but not necessarily 

productive? During the lunch with Kyle McDonald I was thinking about positionality. How our approach influences where and how we end up working. Where you draw from and what you seek affect the work. From what I gathered the relationship we have with ourselves is being translated into our technology, our machines; they inherit that angst and uncertainty from us, right? Industry and academia, even though different at the core, deal with the problems they tackle similarly: connections, disconnections, weights, and purpose.  It's a network, it's a web. And the intersections of the connections are not only nodes but the same connections supporting one another towards an individualistic goal. 

People are complicated and diverse. Our relationships with ourselves, others, and technology also carry those complex layers. But when we situate ourselves in the intersection of disciplines, we end up inhabiting a liminal space, that is, privilege with understanding and an overview of the topics of our inquiry. It is up to us to decide what type of questions and directions we take. 

The thing with technology and inquiry is that every problem solved, prototype working, or understanding of something specific is an adrenaline hit, to keep going, keep looking, all the mini accomplishments push us through the process or the journey as Stella said "journey is such a bleached out word". And that's probably right; we justify not having the answer with a "we are working on it". But when the journey is valuable to ourselves, is there something else you really need to ask? We can just keep curiosity alive and hope for the best, that might be the sensible thing to do.

Spring carnival came and went, and after that week of fun work, projects and the usual grind made a comeback. A fast one. Explorations with code ended up resulting in patchy, difuse outcomes from the waste scanner, and the variations and embracing the weirdness is what has kept us going with that thread of research. 

On the other hand, once a bubble always a bubble... the code, movement, and setup are working just in time for the end of the semester. The bubble, air mass, and acceleration open up different possibilities to what I could make babs accomplish? Hopefully, there is going to be a little exploration and good documentation there as well.

For the prethesis, there is this evolving diagram that is, in a sense, my thinking in a drawing. It's still not completely clear, but there is the intention to clarify ideas, thoughts, and processes as soon as I get the chance to reflect on it. While working on the outline, I haven't noticed that there is a thread I've been following since day one.  I got hooked to the robotics possibilities, the materiality, fabrication, and tangible aspect is visible, but the underlying layers of complex processes, understanding, and agendas are only visible to the ones that understand it.

Misty was finally the center of attention to a lot of friends that agreed to participate in the prototype user study. Super thankful for all these nice peeps that contribute their time when they find a project interesting. We'll see more about Misty and HRI once we calculate the results and analyze the data.

When Andrew Carnegie said my heart is in the work he was not joking; these are all long hours.