Just kidding. But it does bring up the question of how do I collaborate with a non-human entity? Is it even possible?
Well, from my perspective it is. However, let’s look at what others in the fields of creativity and sociology say.
I’ll start with a sociological perspective. A definition of Actor Network Theory (ANT) is a good place to start so that we can break down how this relates to my Final Major Project (FMP) and what insights working with a non-human collaborator bring up.
Actor Network Theory: Is a theoretical framework within the field of science and technology studies (STS) that examines how social, technical, and material entities (referred to as “actors”) interact to form complex networks that shape and influence outcomes. ANT challenges traditional distinctions between human and non-human agents by treating them symmetrically as participants in these networks.
This definition, while not specifically saying that non-human entities can be collaborators as an overt term, states that the interactions between human and non-human “actors” to influence one another.
ANT is a contrasting view to Technological Determinism (TD), where the idea that technology develops independently of social change and drives social change (Bimber, 1990). For example, Karl Marx believed that the railway in colonial India changed social hierarchies by introducing new economic activities (ibid.). While TD can look like a good place to start when you take a cursory view of any technology and its impact on how people use it, I believe a more nuanced approach can lead to a better understanding of how we as humans interact with technology, and how we as humans shape technology. To gain a more holistic view of collaboration I’ll bring up Fraser’s “Collaboration bites back” (2022). In this paper Fraser creates a manifesto for collaboration as a tool for change. So, I thought it best to go through her 10-point manifesto and see/explain how working with ST4RT+ achieves her points.
- Collaboration should not be predictable:
This is an easy one. While ST4RT+ is based on my melodies and data, it doesn’t create melodies that are 100% what I would do. - Collaboration should not be clean:
This one is a little more nuanced. I will say that when I was struggling with the outputs of the model at the start of this project, I had to get my hands dirty and get to the point where I started thinking more like a music producer and less like a developer. - Collaboration should not be safe:
This whole project was a risk, using technology I’d never used before, and risking that it was going to work has put me in a place where I thought I was going to be lucky to generate anything worthwhile. - Collaboration requires consent:
Harder to do this with a non-human collaborator, however if the original generation of a set of melodies is objectively awful (all the notes are overlapped and on bar one) then I just regenerate. - Collaboration requires trust:
This point is interesting, for me it was about trusting myself and the process. When I was fighting the models output it was because I wasn’t trusting my skills as a music producer. I wanted the model to generate clean melody lines. Trust in myself has really helped to get this project working. - Collaboration requires time, and time (usually) costs money:
This project has taken time to get working (far more time in the beginning than I anticipated). It has needed experimentation and failure to get to a point where the process and methodology are working. - Collaboration requires vigilance:
Regardless of a non-human collaborator, this still applies, though it relies more on me to do that work. - Collaboration is not compulsory:
Nothing to see here… in this case it was compulsory. - Collaboration is not cool:
I disagree here. Only because using an ANT framework almost everything is a collaboration even if you aren’t aware of it. - Collaboration is a tool for change:
I agree that any collaboration should challenge the status quo. For me the idea of creating an ethical use for AI trained only on the data that I have given it challenges how AI is being used and the data it is trained on. For me this is important and a point of difference with this project.
I think that when I look at Fraser’s 10-point manifesto that this project still works in terms of meeting what she defines as collaboration.
Bibliography
Bimber, B. (1990) Karl Marx and the Three Faces of Technological Determinism, in Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1990), pp. 333-352. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/285094 (Accessed: 2 December 2024).
Fraser, J. (2022) Collaboration bites back. Available at: https://www.julietfraser.co.uk/app/download/11414030/Collaboration+bites+back.pdf (Accessed: 18 October 2024)