Weiner’s lecture articulating his thoughts about cybernetics fascinated me for several reasons – his explanations of the role of negative feedback, the analysis of similar processing methods between humans and automatic computing machines, and his skepticism of man’s intellectual functioning during moments of crisis, among others.

However, the most powerful, and also the most unexpected, elements of his piece were the moral and religious implications of his predictions – the worried reference to Exodus (“There is a very real danger in this country in bowing down before the brass calf, the idol, which is the gadget” p. 71), the fear of an ignorance  - or perhaps even an active shunning - of the communal responsibilities when we use the new rapid computational power, the clear-eyed ethical challenge that “while we may make the machines our gods and sacrifice men to machines, we do not have to do so.”  (p. 72)

Despite the near ubiquity of machines in our daily lives, it seems easy to ignore a question which is at least as relevant as it was half a century ago – just because we can use all of this great new technology for a particular – perhaps economically useful  – end, should we? 

Somehow, the fact that Licklider’s essay doesn’t engage with those questions even heightens their importance.

Finally, I wonder whether this flyer for an upcoming workshop - with its images of human and  machine interaction (fighting or caring, depending on the picture) embodies this ethical ambivalence?  

And then there's the actual substance of the workshop, about how our visible interconnectedness can both help and hurt us as we go out into the world, depending on the decisions we make about how we interact with the machines.

I didn't design this poster, or even come up with the concept for the session (the two presenters wanted to draw on the Real Steel concept) but I've found myself staring at this as I've been reflecting on this week's readings.