Featured in IDEAS, PRACTICE, RESEARCH, TECH, THE BACK, Artificial Intelligence, Brent Chamberlain, Experience Intelligence, Machine Learning, Philip Ferberg, August 19, 2021 | Comment »
Advances in artificial intelligence innovation should make us rethink future landscape architecture.
If you put your thumb on old issues Science Once you arrive in 1967, you will encounter an ambiguous article in the field of artificial intelligence research, pioneering by Alan Newwl, arguing for the validity of a new discipline called computer science. In the article, Newwell and his colleagues, Alan J. Perlis and Herbert A. Simon, make some basic objections to the academy that computer science is actually a science or even a valuable discovery. The questions are simple but basic – is there anything called computer science? If so, what is it?
As you read the objections and the responses of each, you may begin to think about the same question line in landscape architecture as we thought. Talk to the computer with our professional expert and you will have academic lessons related to licensing meetings, the Sella Conference, or the disciplinary situation. Computer science and landscape architecture together have an amazing amount of space. Both are relatively new (at least in the public sense), they have both improved significantly over the past century, and both have been in constant discussion about their position among peers. This is good to know, but it is not descriptive.
But the intersection will be even more exciting. One of the objections in the text is that the term “computer” is not well defined, and its meaning is changing with new developments, so computer science does not have a well-defined subject. ” The authors’ answer is insightful and echo: “The events of all sciences change over time, the process Perception It proves this to happen. Astronomy did not initially include the study of interstitial gases; Physics does not include radioactive; Psychology does not involve studying the behavior of animals. Math was once described as the “science of numbers.” ”So is the landscape architecture. Only work on an accelerated timeline. As the understanding of our intermediaries and our tools improves, the field will constantly change, re-evaluate, and re-evaluate. Before Olmsted, landscapes were gardens rather than systems. Before Ian Machaarg Design with nature, Those systems were not eco-friendly; before CAD, GIS or Adobe, our tools were just pen and paper. (Additional…)
Read the full post »