Kinetica Panel Q&A

Documentation:
Gallery | Video | Writing : Kinetica 2010 | Live Reporting

By: Steve Boxer

With the presentations done and dusted, it was the turn of the audience at the Robots And Avatars Kinetica Art Fair panel to take centre-stage, quizzing the panellists on the burning questions that had emerged during their addresses.

The first poser fired at the panel was: “How do you think avatars might affect racism and discrimination in the future?”

Michael Takeo Magruder was the first to respond: “You are able to create avatars that open up so many possibilities, because an avatar could be exactly what you want it to be. Physically, you are limited to one form but those limits are stripped away in a virtual system. In terms of identity, there are issues, because you can change appearance so rapidly. But when you’re operating online, avatar to avatar, you’re still having a personal relationship. So how do you go about developing trust?”

Noel Sharkey added: “I showed one scene with an avatar couple embracing and kissing, but found out that the hot-looking girl was actually being controlled by a fat man. In that sense, the whole issue of sexism and racism vanishes. But I think what you look like affects your personality – if I had a beautiful robatar, how would that change me?”

Ron Edwards took up the debate: “In private virtual worlds, the issue of identity is critical, so in the corporate world, there are limited ways in which to change your avatars.” Ghislaine Boddington added: “Young people we had at the Robots And Avatars Forum, held at Nesta, felt that in virtual worlds, they could be unworried about their age, looks and so on, and be more like their real selves.”

Next was some feedback from the questioner: “I’d have that organised the other way around – we generally wish to be like what is considered acceptable. In Second Life, it’s hard to look ugly; there’s a real problem with this issue, because we could become further alienated from our humble, fleshy bodies. Is there any sense on the panel of the potentially misleading natures of avatars?”

Anna Hill answered: “We’re back to the idea of human integrity – when we’re creating multiple identities, who is using them? These are important issue about the nature of control and surveillance, and assumptions people are making based on appearance. There are lots of value systems feeding into our sense of self. But a lot of special needs people find avatars extremely liberating, as they aren’t in wheelchairs and can do the same things as other people. All technologies have upsides and downsides.”

The next question was: “Looking at the notion of physical alternatives in virtual environments, do you think people should focus more on the quality of interactions and relationships with other people in real life?”

Ghislaine Boddington replied: “That loss of liveness: is it a big problem? What types of new relationships will emerge from it?”

Ron Edwards added: “Authenticity is key, in terms of knowing who you are interacting with. Some avatars are still, whereas others look at you, and lip-synch. There are tools which let you take photos of yourself and make them into an avatar.

Peter McOwan chipped in with: “What constitutes a quality relationship? Look at, for example, Heathcliff and Cathy – there was a lot of chasing across moors. If one of them had a moped, would they have been so amorous? For example, if you’re going out, you’ll make an effort to dress up. How can you do that when you’re logging on and eating crisps. You wonder if that will affect the depth of relationships, and I suspect it does. Real-world relationships tend to involve a lot of physical effort, but in the virtual world, that effort is not there.”

The next question came in: “How much can this technology be used for the betterment of humanity? Because, having an avatar, you’re always connected to a mobile computer – part of yourself is there, and part of yourself is still in the physical realm. Are measures being taken to avoid complete immersion in the world of avatars?”

Noel Sharkey answered: “The answer is probably no,” and Michael Takeo Magruder continued: “I would agree with that. Most of the technologies are free and open, and you can use them for whatever purpose you want. In terms of limiting ourselves from complete immersion, right now, the technology is not there to do that. Do we want to completely distance ourselves from our physical bodies? No, I don’t think so. Let’s look at a music analogy – CDs and digital audio have existed for a long time now. I like music, but I still buy vinyl, because I like the physicality of it and the quality and the sound, even though from a practical sense, it’s not necessary. I don’t really have that worry – that we’ll become completely engrossed.”

Ghislaine Boddington added: “I think in a way, why you put that question forward is exactly why we’re doing this Robots And Avatars programme. To me it would be quite frightening if we did have rules or stops or boundaries saying: “you can’t do this, you can’t become that immersed, you can’t look how you want to look. One of the joys of this area at the moment is that it’s really free and open. What we’ve got to do is to trust people to find our way through this in the best way.”

Noel Sharkey then said: “I think you will have regulations eventually, because of misrepresentation of yourself. For instance, if I wear a policeman’s uniform and go outside, or wear military medals, I’m misrepresenting myself and I could get prosecuted for it.”

Ghislaine Boddington returned to the debate: “That’s the idea of virtual identity maintenance. If, say, you’re a well-known figure, you might hire someone to maintain your virtual identity.”

The next question was: “We have a socio-political system in real life, but will we become more extreme in the virtual world? What political conventions will take place there? Will it be more like anarchy, which is exciting, but potentially scary?”

Anna Hill answered: “Technology is neutral, so it offers as much potential as it poses a threat. With the rapid expansion of technology and the corporate media producers, we do have to be cautious. We’ve had issues such as Google going into China and offering concessions on censorship. All kinds of threats exist, particularly in the military and surveillance areas.”

Michael Takeo Magruder added: “One thing I’ve noticed spending a lot of time in virtual worlds is that people tend to take their preoccupations and baggage from reality into virtuality. In terms of political activism, that stuff happens in virtual worlds much like it does in the physical world. Will that change? Probably – as the generations now are growing up around technology every day, and their thinking around that technology will be more sophisticated. Whereas people from our generation have had to learn it.”

Noel Sharkey chipped in with: “Can I ask a question to the virtual people, as I haven’t spent a lot of time in Second Life and the like. Is there any leak from this into the real world? I was thinking of something like a virtual eBay where you can haggle, but actually get physical goods?”

Michael Takeo Magruder replied: “There are some artists that have played with that. Economics between virtual and physical worlds have been around for a while – that started in gaming, with things like World of Warcraft, where you have things like Chinese gold-farmers, with players building up characters that are sold to Westerners. They tried to make a shopping mall in Second Life, but it hasn’t been too successful.”

Ghislaine Boddington added: “There are virtual events, like a company in the US which creates career fairs, which completely reflect physical environments that exist, for people who physically can’t get there. This blurring, or blending, is gradually happening.”

Ron Edwards then said: “A farmers’ market started a building in Second Life for people who go to the physical farmers’ market, where people could virtually sell cheese, which was then shipped. But what they found was that it wasn’t scaleable, so they have now launched it as a simple web-based application.”

Ghislaine Boddington then wrapped up proceedings: “I’m going to pick up on a couple of points for future visions. There’s the whole area of robots, avatars, teams and collaboration. And let’s keep in our heads the future where avatars are working with avatars – you give them a set of tasks, and they come back having done their work, while you’ve done your work. Plus the idea of robots having their own avatars.

“There’s a lot of work being done around the world – and much that still needs to be done – on gestural interfaces, voice-recognition and motion-capture, plus there’s the 3D stereoscopic side. GPS location and mobile technologies have mentioned, and that’s a really important area.”

“Also, we have Stelarc in this room, who is working from a very different angle: looking at how the body controls robots, but also how robots control the body, which we haven’t hit on at all, really. We will move onwards with that in our Robots and Avatars discussion in the coming months.”