[h]umans are being defined through the artefacts that they design. In a sense, humans question themselves and redesign themselves continuously. Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley (2016/18) define ‘Human’ as an unstable category as “What makes [H]uman human is not inside the body or brain, […] but in our interdependency with our art[e]facts.”

Artificial Intelligence (AI) exhibits the idea in which the Human is able to programme intelligence through a set of rules input within a machine. N. Katherine Hayles (2012) explains the idea where the difference between the Human mind and the Machine mind is the mere difference in the set of algorithms. Perhaps if AI is programmable, humans can be programmed. Algorithms in the Human is similar to the software for brain that is being programmed after birth through life experience that gives the set of knowledge and skill. Yet, what define the Human from the Machine is the intelligence of taking control. Hayles (2012) asserts that technologies stimulate transformation in human reading pattern from hermeneutic close reading to hyper reading that is similar to machine reading which initiates synergistic interaction of texts is in accordance to Max Tegmark’s (2017) plasticity of Life 2.0 where flexibility in knowledge enables humans to constantly redesign the Human’s software.

Both exhibit the idea in which the Human is in better control of own identity through the cultural evolution. This postulate a critique on Pierre Bourdieu’s (1992) taste culture that suggests judgement of taste dictates a permanent social identity and impedes social mobility for that taste is being ‘programmed’ through the economic, academic, cultural and social capital. Thus, when humans are improving and becoming better at fast pace with the help of technology, I wish to analyse the definition of human-centred design in architecture when what stays constant is only the life form (body) that is bounded to the biological aspect of a human.

One thought on “The Anthropomorphic Machine

Comments are closed.