Skip to main content

AI is a tool, not an operator

 AI is a tool


Tools have functions — they do not have purpose. Operators provide purpose, goals and objectives that will identify the need, if any, for a particular tool’s functions. 


As an example, airplanes are tools — usually very effective tools. But the aircraft does not choose the crew, cargo, course, departure place or date nor the destination and arrival time. That is all set by operators. Sometimes the operators decide that a different tool is needed for the same outcome. For instance, Apple Inc. has decided to ship its products by cargo ship rather than by air. This is not a decision made by an aircraft nor a ship, but one made by operators.


AI is a tool. The hype around this tool becoming functional enough to provide purpose is meant to distract you from some operators' intentions. For instance, these are operators:



Operators determine outcomes and intentions, and call for particular functions to be utilized in support of particular purposes. The reasons for choosing any specific outcome or intention are the operator’s, not the tool’s. Any distraction from this important point plays into the serious consequences of how and why a particular tool is used in the way it is — without mediation or mitigation.


Popular posts from this blog

Center for Systemic Design draft prospectus

    PROSPECTUS Center for Advanced Systemic Designing Introduction  Our futures can be approached in four ways: 1) drifting—adapting to whatever happens,  2) colliding—reacting and enduring,  3) retreating—backing away from undesirable states or conditions, or   4) advancing—navigating into desirable states-of-affairs. The norm nowadays is to drift, collide or retreat into the future. The fourth approach, the proactive approach, is the more apt response given the complex challenges and rising expectations that are the new norm for the foreseeable future.  The fourth approach depends on the agency of individuals who have the capacity to handle the challenge of securing desired outcomes in indeterminate situations on behalf of concomitant stakeholders and clients. They achieve this by serving—design agency—as members of design teams and design cohorts. These systemic designers are skilled polymaths who have the ability to create assemblies of essential elements into coherent whole system

Design, Wicked Problems & Throwness

Horst Rittel is one of the seminal residents in my 'Berkeley Bubble'. Recently a friend and colleague sent me an article about ‘double-wickedproblems’ . I have become ever more aware of the increasing number of references to ‘wicked problems’ in all forms of media that seem to have missed Rittel’s deeper insights . This brought up the concern I have about the use and miss-use of the term ‘wicked problem’.  The term ‘wicked problem’, first introduced by Rittel in West Churchman’s seminars at Berkeley, was in reference to his conceptualization of the impossible challenge of dealing with significant social issues using traditional, rational, ‘problem solving’ methods. In most cases what are miss-diangnosed as ‘wicked problems’ are actually complex or complicated problems that can be simplified or broken into smaller 'tame' problems allowing for a straight forward 'problem solving' approach to be taken. This approach is believed by many to be capable