I joined Miro a year ago this week, back in November 2024.
In my first few weeks I wrote down and shared with the team a few assumptions / goals / thoughts / biases / priors as a kind of pseudo-manifesto for how I thought we might proceed with AI in Miro, and I thought I’d dust them off.
About a month ago we released a bunch of AI features that the team did some amazing work on, and will continue to improve and iterate upon.
If I squint I can maybe see some of this in there, but of course a) it takes a village and b) a lot changed in both the world of AI and Miro in the course of 2025.
Anyway – FWIW I thought it would still be fun to post what I thought I year ago, as there might be something useful still there, accompanied by some slightly-odd Sub-Gondry stylings from Veo3…
Multiplayer / Multispecies
When we are building AI for Miro always bear in mind the human-centred team nature of innovation and making complex project work. Multiplayer scenarios are always the start of how we consider AI processes, and the special sauce of how we are different to other AI tools.
Minds on the Map
The canvas is a distinct advantage for creating an innovation workspace – the visibility and context than can be given to human team members should extend to the AI processes that can be brought to bear on it. They should use all the information created by human team members on the canvas in their work.
Help both Backstage & On-Stage
Work moves fluidly from unstructured and structured modes, asynchronous and synchronous, solo and team work – and there are aspects of preparation and performance to all of these. AI processes should work fluidly across all of them.
AI is always Non-Destructive
All AI processes aim to preserve and prioritise work done by human teams.
AI gets a Pencil, Humans get a Pen
Anything created by an AI process (initially) has a distinct visual/experiential identity so that human team members can identify it quickly.
No Teleporting
Don’t teleport users to a conclusion.
Where possible, expose the ‘chain of thought’ that the AI process so that users can understand how it arrived at the output, and edit/iterate on it.
AIs leave visible (actionable) evidence
Where possible, expose the AI processes’ ‘chain of thought’ on the board so that users can understand how it arrived at the output, and edit/iterate on it. Give hooks into this for integrations, and make context is well logged in versions/histories.
eBikes for the Mind
Humans always steer and control – but AI processes can accelerate and compress the distances travelled. They are mostly ‘pedal-assistance’ rather than self-driving.
Help do the work of the work
What are the AI processes that can accelerate or automate the work around the work e.g. taking notes, scheduling, follows ups, organising, coordinating: so that the human team mates can get on with the things they do best.
Using Miro to use Miro
Eventually, AI processes in Miro extend in competence to instigate and initiate work in teams in Miro. This could have its roots in composable workflows and intelligent templates, but extend to assembling/convening/facilitating significant amounts of multiplayer/multispecies work on an indvidual’s behalf.
My Miro AI
What memory / context can I count on to bring to my work, that my agents or my team can use. How can I count on my agents not to start from scratch each time? Can I have projects I am working on with my agents over time? Are my agents ‘mine’? Can I bring my own AI, visualise and control other AI tools in Miro or export the work of Miro agents to other tools, or take it with me when I move teams/jobs (within reason). Do my agents have resumes?
This excellent image visualises household carbon footprints – highlighting in coincidental green the extreme efficiency of NYC compared to the surrounding suburban sprawl of the emerging BAMA.
I thought as it’s a 16 year old now, I should check in on it, with some distance, and give it a new home here.
I thankfully found my original non-edited google doc that I shared with Annalee, and it’s pasted below…
My friend Nick Foster is giving the closing keynote at the event Sir Norman spoke at tomorrow. He just wrote an excellent book on our attitudes to thinking about futures called “Could Should Might Don’t” – which I heartily recommend.
My little piece of amateur futurism from 2009 has a dose of all four – but for the reasons Sir Norman pointed out, I think it’s still a ‘Could’.
And… Still a ‘Should’.
The City is (still) a battlesuit for surviving the future.
[The following is my unedited submission to io9.com, published 20th September 2009]
The city is a battlesuit for surviving the future.
Looking at the connections between architects and science-fiction’s visions of future cities
In February of this year I gave a talk at webstock in New Zealand, entitled “The Demon-Haunted World” – which investigated past visions of future cities in order to reflect upon work being done currently in the field of ‘urban computing’.
In particular I examined the radical work of influential 60’s architecture collective Archigram, who I found through my research had coined the term ‘social software’ back in 1972, 30 years before it was on the lips of Clay Shirky and other internet gurus.
Rather than building, Archigram were perhaps proto-bloggers – publishing a sought-after ‘magazine’ of images, collage, essays and provocations regularly through the 60s which had an enormous impact on architecture and design around the world, right through to the present day. Archigram have featured before on io9 [http://io9.com/5157087/a-city-that-walks-on-giant-actuators], and I’m sure they will again.
They referenced comics – American superhero aesthetics but also the stiff-upper-lips and cut-away precision engineering of Frank Hampson’s Dan Dare and Eagle, alongside pop-music, psychedelia, computing and pulp sci-fi and put it in a blender with a healthy dollop of Brit-eccentricity. They are perhaps most familiar from science-fictional images like their Walking City project, but at the centre of their work was a concern with cities as systems, reflecting the contemporary vogue for cybernetics and belief in automation.
Although Archigram didn’t build their visions, other architects brought aspects of them into the world. Echoes of their “Plug-in city” can undoubtedly be seen in Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers’ Pompidou Centre in Paris.
Much of the ‘hi-tech’ style of architecture (chiefly executed by British architects such as Rogers, Norman Foster and Nicholas Grimshaw) popular for corporate HQs and arts centers through the 80s and 90s can be traced back to, if not Archigram, then the same set of pop sci-fi influences that a generation of British schoolboys grew up with – into world-class architects.
Lord Rogers, as he now is, has made a second career of writing and lobbying about the future of cities worldwide. His books “Cities for a small planet” and “Cities for a small country” were based on work his architecture and urban-design practice did during the 80s and 90s, consulting on citymaking and redevelopment with national and regional governments. His work for Shanghai is heavily featured in ‘small planet’ – a plan that proposed the creation of an ecotopian mega city. This was thwarted, but he continues to campaign for renewed approaches to urban living.
Last year I saw him give a talk in London where he described the near-future of cities as one increasingly influenced by telecommunications and technology. He stated that “our cities are increasingly linked and learning” – this seemed to me a recapitulation of Archigram’s strategies, playing out not through giant walking cities but smaller, bottom-up technological interventions. The infrastructures we assemble and carry with us through the city – mobile phones, wireless nodes, computing power, sensor platforms are changing how we interact with it and how it interacts with other places on the planet. After all it was Archigram who said “people are walking architecture”
Dan Hill (a consultant on how digital technology is changing cities for global engineering group Arup) in his epic blog post “The Street as Platform” [http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2008/02/the-street-as-p.html] says “…the way the street feels may soon be defined by what cannot be seen by the naked eye”.
He goes on to explain:
“We can’t see how the street is immersed in a twitching, pulsing cloud of data. This is over and above the well-established electromagnetic radiation, crackles of static, radio waves conveying radio and television broadcasts in digital and analogue forms, police voice traffic. This is a new kind of data, collective and individual, aggregated and discrete, open and closed, constantly logging impossibly detailed patterns of behaviour. The behaviour of the street.”
Adam Greenfield, a design director at Nokia wrote one of the defining texts on the design and use of ubiquitous computing or ‘ubicomp’ called “Everyware” [http://www.studies-observations.com/everyware/] and is about to release a follow-up on urban environments and technology called “The city is here for you to use”.
In a recent talk he framed a number of ways in which the access to data about your surroundings that Hill describes will change our attitude towards the city. He posits that we will move from a city we browser and wander to a ‘searchable, query-able’ city that we can not only read, but write-to as a medium.
He states
“The bottom-line is a city that responds to the behaviour of its users in something close to real-time, and in turn begins to shape that behaviour”
Again, we’re not so far away from what Archigram were examining in the 60’s. Behaviour and information as the raw material to design cities with as much as steel, glass and concrete.
The city of the future increases its role as an actor in our lives, affecting our lives.
This of course, is a recurrent theme in science-fiction and fantasy. In movies, it’s hard to get past the paradigm-defining dystopic backdrop of the city in Bladerunner, or the fin-de-siècle late-capitalism cage of the nameless, anonymous, bounded city of the Matrix.
Perhaps more resonant of the future described by Greenfield is the ever-changing stage-set of Alex Proyas’ “Dark City”.
For some of the greatest-city-as-actor stories though, it’s perhaps no surprise that we have to turn to comics as Archigram did – and the eponymous city of Warren Ellis and Darrick Robertson’s Transmetropolitan as documented and half-destroyed by gonzo future journalist-messiah Spider Jerusalem.
Transmet’s city binds together perfectly a number of future-city fiction’s favourite themes: overwhelming size (reminiscent of the BAMA, or “Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis from William Gibson’s “Sprawl” trilogy), patchworks of ‘cultural reservations’ (Stephenson’s Snowcrash with it’s three-ring-binder-governed, franchise-run-statelets) and a constant unrelenting future-shock as everyday as the weather… For which we can look to the comics-futrue-city grand-daddy of them all: Mega-City-1.
Ah – The Big Meg, where at any moment on the mile-high Zipstrips you might be flattened by a rogue Boinger, set-upon by a Futsie and thrown down onto the skedways far below, offered an illicit bag of umpty-candy or stookie-glands and find yourself instantly at the mercy of the Judges. If you grew up on 2000AD like me, then your mind is probably now filled with a vivid picture of the biggest toughest, weirdest future city there’s ever been.
This is a future city that has been lovingly-detailed, weekly, for over three decades years, as artist Matt Brooker (who goes by the psuedonym D’Israeli) points out:
“Working on Lowlife, with its Mega-City One setting freed from the presence of Judge Dredd, I found myself thinking about the city and its place in the Dredd/2000AD franchise. And it occurred to me that, really, the city is the actual star of Judge Dredd. I mean, Dredd himself is a man of limited attributes and predictable reactions. His value is giving us a fixed point, a window through which to explore the endless fountain of new phenomena that is the Mega-City. It’s the Mega-City that powers Judge Dredd, and Judge Dredd that has powered 2000AD for the last 30 years.”
Brooker, from his keen-eyed-viewpoint as someone currently illustrating MC-1, examines the differing visions that artists like Carlos Ezquerra and Mike McMahon have brought to the city over the years in a wonderful blogpost which I heartily recommend you read [http://disraeli-demon.blogspot.com/2009/04/lowlife-creation-part-five-all-joy-i.html]
Were Mega-City One’s creators influenced by Archigram or other radical architects?
I’d venture a “yes” on that.
Mike McMahon, seen to many, including Brooker and myself as one of the definitive portrayals of The Big Meg renders the giant, town-within-a-city Blocks as “pepperpots” organic forms reminiscent of Ken Yeang (pictured here), or (former Rogers-collaborator) Renzo Piano’s “green skyscrapers”.
While I’m unsure of the claim that MC-1 can trace it’s lineage back to radical 60’s architecture, it seems that the influence flowing the other direction, from comicbook to architect, is far clearer.
“Mega City One is the ultimate comic book city: bigger, badder, and more spectacular than its rivals. It’s underlying design principle is simple – exaggeration – which actually lends it a coherence and character unlike any other. While Batman’s Gotham City and Superman’s Metropolis largely reflect the character of the superheroes who inhabit them (Gotham is grim, Metropolis shines) Mega City One presents an exuberant, absurd foil to Dredd’s rigid, monotonous outlook.”
Back in our world, the exaggerated mega-city is going through a bit of bad patch.
The bling’d up ultraskyscraping and bespoke island-terraforming of Dubai is on hold until capitalism reboots, and changes in political fortune have nixed the futuristic, ubicomp’d-up Arup-designed ecotopia of Dongtan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan] in China.
But, these are but speedbumps on the road to the future city.
There are still ongoing efforts to create planned, model future cities such as one that Nick Durrant of design consultancy Plot is working on in Abu Dhabi: Masdar City [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City] It’s designed by another alumni of the British Hi-tech school – Sir Norman Foster. “Zero waste, carbon neutral, car free” is the slogan, and a close eye is being kept on it as a test-bed for clean-tech in cities.
We are now a predominantly urban species, with over 50% of humanity living in a city. The overwhelming majority of these are not old post-industrial world cities such as London or New York, but large chaotic sprawls of the industrialising world such as the “maximum cities” of Mumbai or Guangzhou [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangzhou]. Here the infrastructures are layered, ad-hoc, adaptive and personal – people there really are walking architecture, as Archigram said.
Hacking post-industrial cities is becoming a necessity also. The “shrinking cities” project, http://www.shrinkingcities.com, is monitoring the trend in the west toward dwindling futures for cities such as Detroit and Liverpool.
They claim:
“In the 21st century, the historically unique epoch of growth that began with industrialization 200 years ago will come to an end. In particular, climate change, dwindling fossil sources of energy, demographic aging, and rationalization in the service industry will lead to new forms of urban shrinking and a marked increase in the number of shrinking cities.”
However, I’m optimistic about the future of cities. I’d contend cities are not just engines of invention in stories, they themselves are powerful engines of culture and re-invention.
David Byrne in the WSJ [http://is.gd/3q1Ca] as quoted by entrepreneur and co-founder of Flickr, Caterina Fake [http://caterina.net/] on her weblog recently:
“A city can’t be too small. Size guarantees anonymity—if you make an embarrassing mistake in a large city, and it’s not on the cover of the Post, you can probably try again. The generous attitude towards failure that big cities afford is invaluable—it’s how things get created. In a small town everyone knows about your failures, so you are more careful about what you might attempt.”
Patron saint of cities, Jane Jacobs, in her book “The Economy of Cities” put forward the ‘engines of invention’ argument in her theory of ‘import replacement’:
“…when a city begins to locally produce goods which it formerly imported, e.g., Tokyo bicycle factories replacing Tokyo bicycle importers in the 1800s. Jacobs claims that import replacement builds up local infrastructure, skills, and production. Jacobs also claims that the increased produce is exported to other cities, giving those other cities a new opportunity to engage in import replacement, thus producing a positive cycle of growth.”
Urban computing and gaming specialist, founder of Area/Code and ITP professor Kevin Slavin showed me a presentation by architect Dan Pitera about the scale and future of Detroit, and associated scenarios by city planners that would see the shrinking city deliberately intensify – creating urban farming zones from derelict areas so that it can feed itself locally. Import replacement writ large.
He also told me that 400 cities worldwide independently of their ‘host country’ agreed to follow the Kyoto protocol. Cities are entities that network outside of nations as their wealth often exceeds that of the rest of the nation put together – it’s natural they solve transnational, global problems.
Which leads me back to science-fiction. Warren Ellis created a character called Jack Hawksmoor in his superhero comic series The Authority.
The surname is a nice nod toward psychogeography and city-fans: Hawksmoor was an architect and progeny of Sir Christopher Wren, fictionalised into a murderous semi-mystical figure who shaped the city into a giant magical apparatus by Peter Ackroyd in an eponymous novel.
Ellis’ Hawksmoor however was abucted multiple times, seemingly by aliens, and surgically adapted to be ultimately-suited to live in cities – they speak to him and he gains nourishment from them. If you’ll excuse the spoiler, the zenith of Hawksmoor’s adventures with cities come when he finds the purpose behind the modifications – he was not altered by aliens but by future-humans in order to defend the early 21st century against a time-travelling 73rd century Cleveland gone berserk. Hawksmoor defeats the giant, monstrous sentient city by wrapping himself in Tokyo to form a massive concrete battlesuit.
Cities are the best battlesuits we have.
It seem to me that as we better learn how to design, use and live in cities – we all have a future.
About 15 years ago, I did a little project to make a ‘rosary’ for what is often referred to as a ‘secular prayer’.
Shipping Forecast Rosary – South East Iceland
Each of the forecast’s regions are represented in laser-cut marine plywood, and strung – in the order of the broadcast – to be thumbed through as you listen.
Shipping Forecast Rosary – German Bight
It was a very quick idea but I’ve always loved it – and it seemed to resonate with a few folks.
This attempted to create alternate coastlines from the shipping forecast areas.
I’m less happy with the execution here, but it’s still a fun idea. Might be more satisfying as something playable, generative – perhaps it has a future as a code experiment with an LLM’s assistance…
Was able to get some time this week to catchup with Bryan Boyer.
We talked about some of the work he was doing with his students, particularly challenging them to think about design interventions and prototyping those across the ‘pace layers’ as famously depicted by Stewart Brand in his book “How buildings learn”
The image is totemic for design practitioners and theorists of a certain vintage (although I’m not sure how fully it resonates with today’s digital ‘product’ design / UX/UI generation) and certainly has been something I’ve wielded over the last two decades or so.
I think my first encounter with it would have been around 2002/2003 or so, in my time at Nokia.
I distinctly remember a conference where (perhaps unsurprisingly!) Dan Hill quoted it – I think it was DIS in Cambridge Massachusetts, where I also memorably got driven around one night in a home-brew dune buggy built and piloted (for want of a better term) by Saul Griffith.
For those not familiar with it – here it is.
The ‘point’ is to show the different cadences of change and progress in different idealised strata of civilisation (perhaps a somewhat narrow WEIRD-ly defined civilisation) – and moreover, much like the slips, schisms and landslides of different geological layers – make the reader aware of the shearing forces and tensions between those layers.
It is a constant presence in the discourse which both leads to it’s dismissal / uncritical acceptance as a cliche.
But this familiarity, aside from breeding contempt means it is also something quite fun to play in semi-critical ways.
While talking with Bryan, I discussed the biases perhaps embedded in showing ‘fashion’ as a wiggly ‘irrational’ line compared to the other layers.
What thoughts may come from depicting all the layers as wiggly?
Another thought from our chat was to extend the geological metaphor to the layers.
Geologists and earth scientists often find the most interesting things at the interstices of the layers. Deposits or thin layers that tell a rich tale of the past. Tell-tale indicators of calamity suck as the K–Pg/K-T boundary. Annals of a former world.
The laminar boundary between infrastructure and institutions is perhaps the layer that gets the least examination in our current obsession with “product”…
I’ve often discussed with folks the many situations where infrastructure (capex) is mistaken for something that can replace institutions/labour (opex) – and where the role of service design interventions or strategic design prototypes can help mitigate.
In the pace layers, perhaps we can call that the “Dan Hill Interstitial Latencies Layer” – pleasingly recurrent in its acronymic form (D-HILL) and make it irregular and gnarly to indicate the difficulties there…
The Representational Planar OP-Ex layer (R-POPE) might be another good name, paying homage to the other person I associate with this territory, Richard Pope. I’ve just started reading Richard’s book “Platformland” which I’m sure will have a lot to say about it.
“We might interact with them as individuals but they’re inherently collective, social, and spatial. Because they bring resources to where they’re used, they create enduring relationships not just between the people who share the network but also between those people and place, where they are in the world and the landscape the network traverses. These systems make manifest our ability to cooperate to meet universal needs and care for each other.”
So, perhaps… rather than superficial snark about a design talk cliche, the work of unpacking and making connective tissue across the pace layers might seem more vital in that context.
A couple of weeks ago, at the end of July, I booked a slot to try out the Apple Vision Pro.
It has been available for months in the USA, and might already be in the ‘trough of disillusionment’ there already – but I wanted to give it a try nonetheless.
I sat on a custom wood and leather bench in the Apple Store Covent Garden that probably cost more than a small family car, as a custom machine scanned my glasses to select the custom lenses that would be fitted to the headset.
I chatted to the personable, partially-scripted Apple employee who would be my guide for the demo.
Eventually the device showed up on a custom tray perfectly 10mm smaller than the custom sliding shelf mounted in the custom wood and leather bench.
The beautifully presented Apple Vision Pro at the Apple Store Covent Garden
And… I got the demo?
It was impressive technically, but the experience – which seemed to be framed as one of ‘experiencing content’ left me nonplused.
I’m probably an atypical punter, but the bits I enjoyed the most were the playful calibration processes, where I had to look at coloured dots and pinch my fingers, accompanied by satisfying playful little touches of motion graphics and haptics.
That is, the stuff where the spatial embodiment was the experience was the most fun, for me…
Apple certainly have gone to great pains to try a and distinguish the Vision Pro from AR and VR – making sure it’s referenced throughout as ‘spatial computing’ – but there’s very little experience of space, in a kinaesthetic sense.
It’s definitely conceived of as ‘spatial-so-long-as-you-stay-put-on-the-sofa computing’ rather than something kinetic, embodied.
The technical achievements of the fine grain recognition of gesture are incredible – but this too serves to reduce the embodied experience.
At the end of the demo, the Apple employee seemed to be noticeably crestfallen that I hadn’t gasped or flinched at the usual moments through the immersive videos of sport, pop music performance and wildlife.
He asked me what I would imagine using the Vision Pro for – and I said int he nicest possible way I probably couldn’t imagine using it – but I could imagine interesting uses teamed with something like Shapr3d and the Apple Pencil on my iPad.
He looked a little sheepish and said that wasn’t probably going to happen but sooner with SW updates, I could use the Vision Pro as an extended display. OK- that’s … great?
But I came away imagining more.
I happened to run into an old friend and colleague from BERG in the street near the Apple Store and we started to chat about the experience I’d just had.
I unloaded a little bit on them, and started to talk about the disappointing lack of embodied experiences.
We talked about the constraint of staying put on the sofa – rather than wandering around with the attendant dangers.
But we’ve been thinking about ‘stationary’ embodiment since Dourish, Sony Eyetoy and the Wii, over 20 years ago.
It doesn’t seem like that much of a leap to apply some of those thoughts to this new level of resolution and responsiveness that the Vision Pro presents.
With all that as a preamble – here are some crappy sketches and first (half-formed) thoughts I wanted to put down here.
Imagining the combination of a Vision Pro, iPad and Apple Pencil
Vision Pro STL Printer Sim
The first thing that came to mind in talking to my old colleague in the street was to take some of the beautiful realistically-embedded-in-space-with-gorgeous-shadows windows that just act like standard 2D pixel containers in the Vision Pro interface and turn them into ‘shelves’ or platens that you could have 3D virtual objects atop.
One idea was to extend my wish for some kind of Shapr3D experience into being able to “previsualise” the things I’m making in the real world. The app already does a great job of this with it’s AR features, but how about having a bit of fun with it, and rendering the object on the Vision Pro via a super fast, impossibly capable (simulated) 3d printer – that of course because it’s simulated can print in any material…
Sketch of Vision Pro 3d sim-printer
(Roughly) Animated sketch of Vision Pro 3d sim-printer
Once my designed objected had been “printed” in the material of my choosing, super-fast (and without any of the annoying things that can happen when you actually try to 3d print something…) I could of course change my scale in relation to it to examine details, place it in beautiful inaccessible immersive surroundings, apply impossible physics to it etc etc. Fun!
Vision Pro Pottery
Extending the idea of the virtual platen – could I use my iPad in combination with with Vision pro as a cross-over real/virtual creative surface in my field of view. Rather than have a robot 3d printer do the work for me, could I use my hands and sculpt something on it?
Could I move the iPad up and down or side to side to extrude or lathe sculpted shapes in space in front of me?
Could it spin and become a potter’s wheel with the detailed resolution hand detection of the Vision Pro picking up the slightest changes to give fine control to what I’m shaping.
Is Patrick Swayze over my shoulder?
Vision Pro + iPad sculpting in space.
Maybe it’s something much more throw-away and playful – like using the iPad as an extremely expensive version of a deformed wire coat-hanger to create streams of beautiful, iridescent bubbles as you drag it through the air – but perhaps capturing rare butterflies or fairies in them as you while away the hours atop Machu Picchu or somewhere similar where it would be frowned up to spill washing-up liquid so frivolously…
Making impossible bubbles with an iPad in Vision Pro world
Of course this interaction owes more than a little debt to a previous iPad project I saw get made first hand, namely BERG’s iPad Light-painting
Although my only real involvement in that project was as a photographic model…
Your correspondent behind an iPad-lightpainted cityscape (Image by Timo, of course)
Pencils, Pads, Platforms, Pots, Platens, Plinths
Perhaps there is an interesting little more general, sober, useful pattern in these sketches – of horizontal virtual/real crossover ‘plates’ for making, examining and swapping between embodied creation with pencil/iPad and spatial examination and play with the Vision Pro.
I could imagine pinching something from the vertical display windows ion Vision Pro to place onto my ipad (or even my watch?) in order to keep it, edit it, change something about it – before casting it back into the simulated spatial reality of the Vision Pro.
Perhaps it allows for a relationship between two realms that feels more embodied and ‘real’ without having to leave the sofa.
Perhaps it also allows for less ‘real’ but more fun stuff to happen in the world of the Vision Pro (which in the demo seems doggedly to anchor on ‘real’ experience verissimilitude – sport, travel, family, pop concerts)
Perhaps my Apple watch can be more of a Ben 10 supercontroller – changing into a dynamic UI to the environment I’m entering, much like it changes automatically when I go swimming with it and dive under…
Anyway – was very much worth doing the demo, I’d recommend it, if only for some quick stretching (and sketching) of the mindlegs.
My sketches in a cafe a few days after the demo
All in all I wish the Vision Pro was just *weirder*.
Back when it came out in the US in February I did some more sketches in reaction to that thought… I can’t wait to see something like a bonkers Gondry video created just for the Vision Pro…
No Miracles Necessary in the Chobani Cinematic Universe
I realise I’ve had a set of beliefs.
Some which are (unfortunately, probably) somewhere on the spectrum toward the extreme techno-optimist views espoused since by those with various dubious political views.
That is – despite the patient explanations of various far-cleverer friends of mine – I find I cannot become comfortable with even the most cosy narratives of what has become called “degrowth“.
Perhaps it is easier for me to imagine the end of the world rather than the end of capitalism, but it does rather seem that we missed that already.
We have gone beyond the end of capitalism into techno-feudalism and the beginning era of the Klepts – and are very much in the foothills of The Jackpot – so maybe Mark Fisher’s phrase gets updated with an “and” instead of the “rather than”…
I’m no PPE grad, and my discomfort with degrowth is not all that articulate (and subsequently it will be deconstructed articulately by those who hold it as a TINA of the left) but simply put, the root of my ill-ease with the term is “who does it hurt”.
It just doesn’t feel like the pursuit of degrowth would be any more equitable globally than untrammelled hyper-capitalist growth.
Maybe I’m very wrong – but globally-managed, distributed, equitable degrowth just doesn’t seem plausible.
And the more likely ‘degrowth for me, no growth for thee’ also doesn’t seem like it will fly (or take the train). I guess most of all when I hear the term degrowth I flinch from the point of view of the privilege (including mine) it requires to imagine it.
Why am I putting this lengthy and awkward disclaimer here?
I guess because I am a shamefaced technoptimist – the name of the blog gives that away – but of the fully-automated luxury communism variety (actually I’d plump for semi-automated convivial social democracy, but then I’m also a bit of a centrist dad to add to my sins) and also that I’m not in the DAC/micronukes/fusion camp of extreme VC-led technoptimism around climate.
To be clear before you start an intervention, I’m certainly not in Marc Andreesen’s camp – I think / hope I’m sat at the bar somewhere in between Dave Karpf and Noah Smith.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d love fusion to happen – but I’ve been thinking that for about 40 years or more.
Was I the only one to rip the press cuttings of Fleischman and Pons from my teenage bedroom wall with a tear in my eye?
I recently read Arthur Turrell’s “The Star Builders” – and though it protests we are closer than we have ever been – it still seems asymptotically out of reach.
I’m also not waving away the extractive toll off the ‘no miracles necessary’ on the planet, or the regimes and injustices that can be supported by it – though it’s always worth posting this as a reminder.
The recent work by Superflux for the WEF underlines the importance of addressing the many other planetary boundaries and negative impacts on the Earth’s systems that our current Standard Operating Procedures are causing.
Adam recently reminded me over lunch – even the “No Miracles Necessary” future depends on the not-insubstantial miracle of having a complex world economy and industrial base to manufacture the PV panels, batteries, and turbines.
Again – the first minutes of James Burke’s “Connections” springs to mind in terms of the vertiginous tangle of systems we rely on.
Climate/Earth-System breakdown could put paid to that too.
But ultimately – I am is a designer in the technology sector, latterly for the past two years in the energy tech sector – and my view of the designer in that world is to help imagine, illustrate, conceive and communicate the ‘protopia’ or anti-anti-utopia that the ‘no miracles needed’ prescription could lead to (more on this later).
As I said in Oslo, and before/since – my measure of state of that art is not from Hollywood or Cupertino – but a yoghurt company based in New York State.
AHEM.
Yep.
Ultimately, I’m a middle-aged, middle-class white man in the global north clinging on to the fictional technologically-advanced long term futures for humanity that he grew up with – whether they are The Federation, The Culture, The various KSR Mondragonian world-lines or Fully Automated Luxury Communism.
So maybe read the rest of this with that and a pinch of sustainably-sourced salt in mind…
Part 2: I can’t see the other side of the donut from Earth.
I’m sure many of you reading this will have read Kate Raworth’s excellent “Donut Economics” – or at least have a passing acquaintance with the central idea.
That is – we should look to inhabit a zone between resource use to support a social floor of equity and fairness and the planetary boundaries that provide those resources – which describes the diagrammatic donut.
But – what if one of those planetary boundaries is not like the others?
What if one of those planetary boundaries is not quite the same?
If one of those planetary boundaries is not like the others…
Now it’s time to play our game…
The potential renewable energy we could harness as a civilisation is vast.
The solar potential alone is 104 more than we currently need.
That’s before we go beyond “no miracles” tech into fusion.
What happens if we extend one edge of the donut by four orders of magnitude?
What does a Type-1 Donut Economics look like?
(Admission: I cheated a little in the title of this post – a Dyson Sphere would be a Type-2 Civilisation, capturing the entire energy output of The Sun.)
Well – it was 2023, so of course I asked a LLM.
Me:How might one reconcile donut economics and planetary boundaries to economic activity with the notion of Kardashev type one civilisation?
ChatGPT: Reconciling “donut economics” (which focuses on balancing the needs of the environment with the needs of society) and “planetary boundaries” (which identifies the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate) with the idea of a Kardashev Type I civilization (a civilization that can harness and use all available energy resources on its home planet) is a challenge but not impossible. Here’s a brief reconciliation approach:
Shared Goal:
Recognize that both the concepts of donut economics and the Kardashev scale aim for a sustainable, thriving civilization. Donut economics seeks to meet humanity’s basic needs without overshooting our ecological ceiling, and a Type I civilization seeks to maximize energy use in a sustainable manner.
Redefine Energy Mastery:
A true Kardashev Type I civilization would not just be about harnessing all energy but doing so sustainably. This means developing energy sources that do not breach our planetary boundaries.
Technological Advancement:
Invest in technologies that allow for increased energy utilization without environmental degradation. Examples include highly efficient renewable energy, energy storage solutions, and perhaps even fusion power.
Circular Economy:
Align the principles of donut economics with the growth of civilization. This includes designing products for longevity, easy repair, and recycling; minimizing waste; and creating closed-loop systems that mimic natural processes.
Education & Values:
Cultivate societal values that prioritize sustainability and the well-being of all its members. By educating the population about the importance of planetary boundaries and sustainable growth, a Type I civilization can emerge that respects these boundaries.
Integrate Economic and Ecological Thinking:
Traditional economic models often treat environmental factors as externalities. In moving towards a Kardashev Type I civilization, it’s essential to integrate ecological factors into the very heart of economic models and decision-making processes.
Global Collaboration:
A Type I civilization implies global cooperation. This can be seen as an extension of the social foundation in donut economics, where global cooperation helps ensure everyone’s basic needs are met while respecting planetary limits.
Continuous Monitoring and Feedback:
Develop and maintain a global monitoring system to ensure that as we approach a Type I civilization status, we do not exceed planetary boundaries. Implement corrective measures when needed.
In essence, becoming a Kardashev Type I civilization while adhering to the principles of donut economics and respecting planetary boundaries means merging advanced technological capacities with deep ecological and social responsibility. It’s a future where we harness the full potential of our planet without harming it, ensuring prosperity and well-being for all.
Me: One of my questions is whether using more energy (so long as it is sustainable, renewable and zero carbon eg solar) is incompatible with donut economics
ChatGPT: Using more energy is not inherently incompatible with donut economics, as long as that energy use aligns with the principles of sustainability and social equity inherent in the donut model.
Let’s break this down:
Ecological Ceiling:
The outer ring of the “donut” represents the ecological limits we should not surpass to avoid environmental degradation. Using sustainable, renewable, and zero-carbon energy sources like solar helps ensure we do not exceed this ecological ceiling.
Social Foundation:
The inner ring of the “donut” signifies the social basics that every individual should have access to, such as food, water, health, education, etc. Using more renewable energy can support these goals if it’s done in a way that ensures equitable distribution and accessibility. For instance, renewable energy can power schools in off-grid areas, provide clean cooking solutions, or pump clean water, thereby aiding in achieving the social foundation.
Growth vs. Development:
It’s essential to differentiate between growth for the sake of growth (which can be detrimental) and genuine development that meets human needs without compromising the environment. Using more energy is acceptable if it’s channelled towards genuine development and not just consumption for consumption’s sake.
Efficiency and Resilience:
While using more renewable energy, it’s crucial to prioritize efficiency. This means optimizing energy consumption to get the most benefit out of every unit of energy and designing systems that are resilient to potential shocks.
Holistic Well-being:
A significant point in donut economics is that endless economic growth (usually measured as GDP growth) is not the ultimate goal. Instead, the objective is holistic well-being. If using more energy contributes to holistic well-being without causing ecological harm, it aligns with the principles of donut economics.
In summary, using more energy in and of itself is not contrary to the principles of donut economics. However, it’s the how and why of that energy use that matters. If the energy is sourced sustainably, used efficiently, directed towards genuine development, and contributes to holistic well-being without overshooting ecological limits or leaving anyone behind, then it aligns with the philosophy of donut economics.
Me:But could you see a route to growth or new capabilities for a global civilisation due to energy use that is orders of magnitude higher than now, so long as it is zero carbon (eg solar, fusion) – would that be an enlarged donut?
ChatGPT: Certainly, there’s a potential route to growth and new capabilities for a global civilization through a significant increase in energy use, as long as it’s sustainable and zero-carbon.
This could, metaphorically speaking, result in an “enlarged donut,” where the scale and capabilities of civilization expand while still maintaining the balance between ecological limits and social needs.
Technological Advancement:
A significant increase in energy availability, especially from sustainable sources like solar or fusion, can fuel technological advancements in various sectors, from transportation and infrastructure to research and space exploration. This could lead to breakthroughs we haven’t yet imagined.
Space Exploration and Colonization:
With energy availability orders of magnitude higher than now, humanity could potentially undertake large-scale space missions, colonizing other celestial bodies, mining asteroids, or even reaching for interstellar travel.
Global Infrastructure Projects:
Massive energy availability could facilitate projects that benefit humanity globally, like global transportation networks, large-scale desalination plants for potable water, or projects that counteract climate change effects.
Elevated Living Standards Globally:
A tremendous amount of sustainable energy could enable the global provision of high living standards, including universal access to healthcare, education, and other public goods, leading to an expanded social foundation in the donut.
New Economic Models:
Such energy abundance could challenge traditional economic models and give rise to new ways of value creation, distribution, and consumption, leading to more equitable and sustainable economic systems.
Ecological Restoration:
Excess energy can be employed in large-scale ecological restoration projects, actively reversing some of the damage done to the planet, from reforestation to ocean cleanup.
However, there are considerations:
Physical Limits:
Even if the energy is zero-carbon, there are still physical limits to consider, such as land use, resource extraction for technology, and potential waste from energy infrastructure.
Equity and Governance:
An abundance of energy could exacerbate inequality if not distributed equitably. Robust governance and frameworks would be necessary to ensure that the benefits of such energy abundance are shared widely.
Cultural and Social Adaptation:
Rapid technological and infrastructure changes fueled by energy abundance would require cultural and social adaptations, making it essential to consider the well-being and adaptability of communities.
Holistic Well-being:
As mentioned before, the end goal shouldn’t be growth for growth’s sake but holistic well-being. An enlarged donut should still maintain this perspective.
In essence, an “enlarged donut” resulting from significant energy growth can be envisioned, where the scale of human capabilities and infrastructure grows but remains within a sustainable and equitable framework. The key is to ensure that this growth enhances the well-being of all without compromising the planet’s ecological integrity.
I mean, that’s pretty good, right? It turns out GPT stands for “Green Plenty Technologies”?
Of course all the caveats around GenAI apply – including the confirmation bias that is baked in to such a dialog.
But!
It’s interesting to me as a starting point for some good old-fashioned human thinking around this stuff. I’m curious if the various bodies that have taken up the mantle of Donut Economics are looking at “Radically Expanded Donuts”… R.E.D. = Green???
One thing that I caught from the dialog was the idea I think I first encountered from Deb Chachra’s newsletter – that we are encouraged to think about energy efficiency over material efficiency, when in fact energy is practically infinite in supply and matter is not.
And it’s not that energy efficiency is a bad thing, far from it – pursuing technologies of energy efficiency in a Type-1 world will just extend the headroom of the donut – but much of it comes from a place of considering energy as something produced by the combustion of finite matter.
We should add to that the externalities of energy use, particularly heat – and moving to a NMN world of full electrification would not remove that exhaust heat production but would hugely mitigate against it.
I’ll also hope that acts as a bulwark against wasteful crypto bullshit… Abhorring waste and scams are not the same as imagining beyond energy penury.
Our “imaginaries” are constrained by what we imagine the planetary boundaries are – which I think partly leads to my dissatisfaction with degrowth narratives – and so, perhaps, designers can step in to help construct new ones.
I’m not sure what they might be.
I have thoughts of course (see later *)
Genres such as Solarpunk are not yet mainstream – even within the discourse of those familiar with or exploring how to enact Donut Economics (please correct me if I’m wrong here!!!).
But – I’m also not sure it’s for me to create those imaginaries.
Which leads me nicely to the brief I put this spring of 2024 to the students at Goldsmiths Design.
Part 3: Can you tell me how to get, how to get to Kardashev Street?
I was very pleased to be asked by Goldsmiths Design to help set an “industry brief” for the second year students in their spring term.
When I got together with the team there at the end of 2023, this obsession with the “Radically Expanded Donut” was in full flight and so it was somewhat unloaded on them at an evening at The New Cross House.
The conversation led from the notion of a Kardashev Type-1 planet, to what it would mean anchored in place and routine of daily life.
We started to flesh that out.
What would a Kardashev Type-1 Street be like to live in?
To move into? To move out of? To live in the next street along, that had not yet realised it’s Type-1 potential for whatever reason?
How do you start that process, or encourage others to do so?
What interconnections, relationships and tensions might arise?
What institutions (financial or otherwise) and services would need to be invited and sustained to support it? What might be the equivalent of the mutual institutions born out of the Industrial Revolution for an equally revolutionary equitable NMN transition?
In Oslo back in May 2023, we’d been made familiar with the custom of “dugnad“, where the occupants of a apartment block work together to maintain their common infrastructure and spaces.
What rituals and expectations might be born on a Kardashev Type-1 street. How would they be transmitted both across communities, cultures and generations?
The students wrestled with the brief admirably – and I’ll post some of the outcomes here soon if I can.
* Part 4 / KardaCoda or Willfully-generative human with no undo vs GenAI
Finally – when asking ChatGPT about all this back in the autumn of 2023, it declined to create a diagram of the Radically Expanded Donut for me.
What it did (kinda) produce was a brief:
I’m sorry, I cannot create drawings directly. However, I can describe how to visualize or design such a diagram based on the concept:
Inner Circle – Social Foundation:
This remains as the core of the donut, representing essential human needs.
You might want to expand this circle to show a broader range of social amenities, reflecting the increased capabilities of a civilization with massive energy resources. This could include advanced education, universal healthcare, enhanced connectivity, etc.
Outer Circle – Ecological Ceiling:
This circle might be farther out than in the traditional donut, reflecting the greater capabilities and infrastructure of an advanced civilization.
Despite the enlargement, it would still emphasize sustainability and the need to avoid overshooting ecological limits. This means not surpassing boundaries like land use change, freshwater use, or other ecological parameters.
Space Between The Circles – The Safe and Just Space:
This area, which represents the space in which humanity can thrive sustainably, would be considerably broader.
You can divide this space into segments, each representing different sectors fueled by the energy abundance: technological advancements, space exploration, global infrastructure, etc.
Additional Elements:
Consider adding visuals that represent the vast energy sources (solar arrays, fusion reactors, etc.) around the donut.
Depict global collaboration symbols, equity symbols, and other elements that emphasize the importance of shared benefits and governance.
To create this diagram, you could use graphic design software like Adobe Illustrator, Canva, or even simpler tools like PowerPoint. Once you have a clear mental image or sketch, you can work on refining it digitally. If you’re not comfortable creating it yourself, you might want to share the concept with a graphic designer who can bring it to life.
This set me off on the quixotic path of being the slow human illustrator of the GenAI’s “imagination”.
I started sketching. I ordered and awaited the delivery of art materials – including the first airbrush and frisk film I’d possessed since the early 1990s.
I waited for coats of ink and acrylic to dry.
I messed things up and tried to fix them/flip them into analog, material ‘beautiful oopses’ in the absence of the undo function.
It took time.
I got ink under my fingernails.
I had fun.
I didn’t annotate with the things I thought I might.
A technoptimist litany – fusion, air mining, atmospheric carbon removal, desalination, detoxicifcation, open source spime-like fabrication of tools and shelter, universal healthcare, universal basic income, another green food revolution via precision fermentation, soil renewal etc.
Instead, more of an obscure mandala to magic forth the Kardashev Type 1 future.
Instead, Kirby dots, glow-in-the dark and gold metallic acrylic detailing – and two scrawled ink numbers: 104 for the energy potential of the Radically Expanded Donut – and 107 for the 10 Billion people it would hopefully support within the equitable, convivial zone it describes.
I also kind-of ended up making a cosmic goatse, but hey.
Acknowledgments
I’m grateful for the conversations I’ve had with Carolyn and Arjun – the tutors and of course Matt Ward for inviting me in.
“LLMs are like being at the pub with friends, it can say things that sound plausible and true enough and no one really needs to check because who cares?”
Ben Terrett was the first person I heard quoting (indirectly) Mitchell & Webb’s notion of ‘Reckons’ – strongly held opinions that are loosely joined to anything factual or directly experienced.
Send us your reckons – Mitchell & Webb
LLMs are massive reckon machines.
Once upon a BERG times, Matt Webb and myself used to get invited to things like FooCamp (MW still does…) and before hand we camped out in the Sierra Nevada, far away from any network connection.
While there we spent a night amongst the giant redwoods, drinking whisky and concocting “things that sound plausible and true enough and no one really needs to check because who cares”.
It was fun.
We didn’t of course then feed those things back into any kind of mainstream discourse or corpus of writings that would inform a web search…
In my last year at Google I worked a little with LaMDA.
The main thing that learned UX and research colleagues investigating how it might be productised seemed clear on was that we have to remind people that these things are incredibly plausible liars.
Moreover, anyone thinking of using it in a product that people should be incredibly cautious.
That Google was “late to market” with a ChatGPT competitor is a feature not a bug as far as I’m concerned. It shouldn’t be treated as an answer machine.
It’s a reckon machine.
And most people outside of the tech industry hypetariat should worry about that.
And what it means for Google’s mission of “Organising the worlds information and making it universally accessible’ – not that Google might be getting Nokia’d.
The impact of a search engine’s results on societies that treat them as scaffolding are the real problem…
My shallow technoptimism will be called into question if I keep going like this so let’s finish on a stupid idea.
British readers of a certain vintage (mine) might recall a TV show called “Call my bluff” – where plausible lying about the meaning of obscure words by charming middlebrow celebrities was rewarded.
Here’s Sir David Attenborough to explain it:
Attenborough on competitive organic LLMs as entertainment
Perhaps – as a public service – the BBC and the Turing Institute could bring Call My Bluff back – using the contemporary UK population’s love of a competitive game show format (The Bake Off, Strictly, Taskmaster) to involve them in a adversarial critical network to root out LLMs’ fibs.
The UK then would have a massive trained model as a national asset, rocketing it back to post-Brexit relevance!
I’m stealing Matt Webb’s “filtered for” format here – for a bunch of more or less loosely connected items that I want to post, associate and log as much for myself as to share.
And – I’ll admit – to remove the friction from posting something without having a strong thread or thesis to connect them.
I’ve pre-ordered “No miracles needed” by Mark Jacobson – which I’m looking forward to reading in February. Found out about it through this Guardian post a week or so ago.
The good news below from Simon Evans seems to support Prof Jacobson’s hypothesis…
The world has reached peak fossil fuels for electricity, thanks to the rapid growth of wind & solar
Wind & solar are the cheapest sources of electricity for 96% of the world's population
“I found this sort of approach really interesting but mostly I like the small scale of it yes I like the fact that it’s you know it’s something that you could imagine just proliferating as a standard component that’s attached to sort of Street Furniture or things around the house or whatever it is you might put them on your windowsill because they’re quite small and they just generate like enough power to make a sensor work or a light or something and yeah it’s this this alternative future to the big powerful set piece green Energy Future that’s obviously being pushed and should continue to be pushed because that’s competing against the big Power and the fossil fuel future but I like this idea of like the smaller cuter weirder fluttery imagine it’s quite fluttery yeah so yeah so this is this is Breeze Punk everybody…”
I like the idea of it being a standard component – a lego. A breezeblock?
I would like it to become… a thing. I suppose that’s why I’m writing this.
Used to be how you made things become things.
It’s probably not how you do it now, you need a much larger coordinated cultural footprint across various short-form streaming formats to make a dent in the embedding space of the LLMs.
Mind you, that’s not the same as making it ‘real’ or even ‘realish’ now is it.
A bit vogue-ish perhaps, to prove a point I asked ChatGPT what it knew about Breezepunk.
It took a while, but… it tried to turn into the altogether less satisfying “windpunk”…
I like making the cursor blink on ChatGPT.
The longer the better. I think it means you’re onto something.
Or maybe that’s just my Bartle-type showing again.
The production design of the recent adaptation of William Gibson’s The Peripheral seemed “fluttery” – particularly in it’s depiction of the post-jackpot London timeline.
Or perhaps the aesthetic is much more one of ‘filigree‘.
There’s heaviness and lightness being expressed as power by the various factions in their architecture, fashion, gadgets.
It’s an overt expression of that power being wielded via nanotechnology – assemblers, disassemblers constructing and deconstructing huge edifices at will.
The last four Tuesday evenings have been for learning and messing about in Unity3D, as part of an excellent online Intro to Unity3d course from City Lit and taught by the knowledgeable (and patient) Rich Cochrane.
It’s been enormously enjoyable – and great to learn a new tool / learn in general. Although as fun as making my final sketch above futzing about with skyboxes, particle systems and physics was – I certainly won’t be giving Tobias Revell anything to worry about any time soon!
Petafloptimism 