Article is from WeChat public account: Xinchuanyandushe (ID: xinchuanyandushe) , author: Andre Guzman, Seth Lewis, from the title figure: Figure worm
Write ahead:
The research papers in this issue come from (New Media & Society) in the first issue of New Media and Society in 2020. This paper discusses how communication scholars should participate in the research of “human-machine communication” and provides three future research directions. The papers are written by Andre Guzman (Northern Illinois University) and Seth Lewis (University of Oregon) . The following is an abstract of the paper:
For more than 70 years, the research and dissemination of artificial intelligence (AI) has been carried out along different trajectories. Research on artificial intelligence has focused on “how to reproduce human intelligence in machines.” In contrast, communication studies focus on peopleHow to exchange information with each other, and the impacts.
As human-machine communication becomes more common, the gap between artificial intelligence and communication research is narrowing. In daily life, people often use Amazon’s Alexa, Apple’s Siri, and other digital assistant chat tools; in the industrial field, the news provider (such as the Associated Press) Using artificial intelligence technology to produce and disseminate news.
However. Communication researchers face a huge obstacle when examining artificial intelligence: The interaction between humans and artificial intelligence is completely inconsistent with the communication theory formed over a century, because all classical communication theories The default is human. The purpose of this article is to advance the research fusion of artificial intelligence and communication by responding to these theoretical challenges.
To this end, we have borrowed research results in the field of human-machine communication (Human Machine Communication, HMC) For communication, this is an emerging field of research that focuses on examining “creation of meaning between man and machine.” HMC is different in that it focuses on the interaction between people and technology. Among them, technology is no longer just a medium, but a new subject of communication.
HMC’s research focuses on the meaning of the interaction between people and technology, and the impact of this meaning on individuals and society. Among them, communication scholars can learn from some of the research traditions in the discipline that emphasize the importance of media, such as McLuhan’s judgment of “media is information”, and how Marvin elaborated the cultural value of communication technology.
So, when technology plays the role of communicator, what can researchers in communication do? Next, we want to try to provide three possible directions.
Artificial Intelligence as a Communicator: A Functional Perspective
First, communication scholars should start with the function of artificial intelligence in communication and ask the following two questions: How is artificial intelligence technology designed as a communicator? How do humans perceive this role played by artificial intelligence?
In the traditional sense, communication scholars often divide communication into mass communication and interpersonal communication. Today, the significance of this classification is increasingly questionable, as the boundaries between the two are constantly being reconstituted, or even completely blurred. When artificial intelligence enters our horizons as a communicator, things are even more troublesome. How do we start studying it?
I think one of the key starting points is to test what are the commonalities and differences between “the spread of people and machines” and “the spread of people and people”. For example, those robots that write news are particularly suitable to be examined in the context of existing mass communication. Scholars use the standard (such as the credibility of the report) to judge the “robot reporter” and the content it reports.
However, this idea may be considered too “pragmatic” and therefore risky. As Spence (2019) questioned: “Should human communication be the ‘golden rule’ for judging HMC?” So he warned, This thinking may limit future research on HMC. In this regard, I would like to add that, although it is necessary to use human communication theory as a starting point, scholars must be careful not to let these existing theories become permanent boundaries of HMC. You know, the emergence of HMC is likely to bring us new theoretical opportunities.
In the existing research, an important topic is “how do people understand artificial intelligence as a subject that can communicate”. Interestingly, artificial intelligence technology often makes sounds, because of the existence of sound, artificial intelligence technology also has a “gender”. More importantly, whether the gender of a technology is consistent with cultural expectations in a particular context will affect how people think about it. In addition, artificial intelligence technology may also include some other linguistic and non-linguistic attributes. (Human / machine, male / female, young / elderly People, mobile / fixed …) , which may affect how humans see it as a communicator and take action based on this imagination.
Besides that, we should also note that emerging artificial intelligence technology is more complicated than earlier technology. Given the emergence of artificial intelligence as a communicator, it is only a matter of recent years. Therefore, little is known about how people understand and interact with these advanced technologies in their daily lives. It is possible for us to conduct more vertical research, such as whether people’s understanding of communicating with artificial intelligence will change over time and in different environments. To what extent do people’s interactions with artificial intelligence affect their understanding of future technologies?
Artificial Intelligence as a Communicator: A Relationship Perspective
George Meade tells us: It is through communication that people form relationships with each other and ultimately society. Therefore, the second question that communication scholars need to answer is how do humans interact with artificial intelligence technology? How do humans understand the relationship between artificial intelligence and themselves?
First of all, we must avoid thinking that “Human-Computer Relationship” must be simpler and lower-level than “Interpersonal Relationship”. I want to point out that when investigating artificial intelligence and “self”, researchers need to realize how anthropocentrism defines the concept of communication, and how this definition affects the study of “self”. Communication scholars should take a step forward to reflect on the existing views of human and artificial intelligence communication, which should be reconsidered.
We just said that the “human-like character” of artificial intelligence (human-like character) has further established its social role. This may, in turn, have a greater impact on society. For example, artificial intelligence technology has historically been a role of “assistant”The color (for example, Siri) , it often emits female voices by default, which is likely to be consistent with the original cultural concept, so it will be further consolidated Stereotypes between gender and occupation.
Therefore, the research on artificial intelligence should give more consideration to the shaping of technology by “public discourse”. It should also be noted that when we study the social role and relationship of technology, we are actually examining this kind of power. Dynamic operation.
For critical scholars, emerging artificial intelligence technologies may be trapped by their creators’ worldview and narrowness. From this point of view, when technology replaces people as communicators and automates the entire communication process, it has the potential to obliterate and devalue people who once stood in this position and threaten certain traditional social processes. (such as democracy) .
Scholars believe that from a social and economic perspective, the emergence of virtual female assistants will reduce the status of the “assistant” professional group. Therefore, one of the core questions of critical research and cultural research is what kind of social significance does a machine represent once it represents human beings?
Artificial Intelligence as a Communicator: A Metaphysical Perspective
At the end of the book (The Story of Human Communication) , Wilbur Schramm talks When it comes to the (thinking machine) , the unknown influence of computers on communication and society. “WhenBy the time we reached this stage, we were dangerously close to the boundaries of some science fiction-computers are not so much a machine as a species … “
As we have discussed, communication theory has always held that the communicator is, of course, a human being, and that technology should of course play an intermediary role. It was around this boundary between man and technology that the theoretical boundary was established. However, the HMC broke the theoretical assumption that “propagation is exclusive to humans.” Therefore, HMC research is helpful in understanding how this “ontological” divide between people and technology changes. Our third research agenda is exactly how to understand artificial intelligence technology as a communicator from a metaphysical level.
For thousands of years, philosophers have tried to understand the nature of people and things. Among them, by discussing technology, philosophers think about what is survival, what is human, and how the body and brain work. When personal computers were used in daily life, Turkle (1984) described them as “metaphysical machines.” The communicative artificial intelligence technology we face today can be regarded as the descendants of “metaphysical machines”, which function more like humans than early computers.
The significance of this is that artificial intelligence technology has the potential to blur the line between humans and machines. In recent years, researchers have begun to investigate similar questions: What does human mean? What is the nature of technology (especially artificial intelligence) ? Where is the dividing line? How do people draw this line?
Communication scholars need to pay attention to the essential impact of artificial intelligence technology. For example, many people are debating around artificial intelligence and robotics. Existing communication ethics and laws are formulated with “people” as actors. Therefore, we should re-examine whether the ethical and legal ontological premises need to be adjusted. Communication scholars nowThe question must be discussed: how should machines treat humans, and in turn, how should humans treat machines.
For example, when artificial intelligence technology enters the journalism, scholars will ask: Who the hell is (what) engaged in journalism? HMC offers a possible answer: technology can be a news disseminator, at least to a certain extent. This answer directly challenges the basic assumptions of communication studies, and communication is not just something that happens between people. The question then suddenly becomes: how do we define propagation now? How can we study both human-to-human interactions and human-to-artificial intelligence interactions in the same discipline?
In fact, even before the popularization of artificial intelligence technology, communication scholars could not reach a consensus on the core concept of “communication”. With this in mind, we do not expect simple answers to this question in the future. Our prediction is that, as artificial intelligence technology becomes more powerful, the ontological boundary between humans and machines will become increasingly blurred, and this discussion will become more challenging.
References
Guzman, AL, & Lewis, SC (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22 (1), 70-86
Article from WeChat public account: 新 传 研Reading Club (ID: xinchuanyandushe) , Author: Andre Guzman, Seth Lewis