A series of illustrations demonstrating how a person in the bottom part of the Mechanical Turk cabinet could position himself to keep his presence hidden.

Right. So, this is the Mechanical Turk. It’s a tech con­fer­ence, so I’m show­ing a pic­ture of the Mechanical Turk. More con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous­ly known as The Turk, The Chess Turk, Kempelen’s Turk, or the Automaton, it was an appar­ent­ly autonomous chess-playing robot build by Wolfgang von Kempelen in 1770. For the best part of six­ty or sev­en­ty years, it entranced the nobil­i­ty of Europe. If you had a social cal­en­dar in the late 18th cen­tu­ry, this was the bomb.

And the rea­son why it was so pop­u­lar, the rea­son why it was so incred­i­ble is that nobody could fig­ure out how it worked. It was either an absolute tech­no­log­i­cal mar­vel far sur­pass­ing any­thing seen to that point, or it was mag­ic. It was pos­sessed, in one sto­ry, by the ghost of a Prussian mer­ce­nary who was ampu­tat­ed. Of course today we know that the Turk worked by means of a small chess play­er hid­den inside it an mov­ing com­part­ments that could cun­ning­ly hide that person. 

In 1804, Kempelen died and the Turk was pur­chased by a Bavarian musi­cian called Johann Mälzel. At this stage, the Turk was in a pret­ty bad con­di­tion, hav­ing spent thirty-five years tour­ing Europe, and Mälzel spent some time learn­ing its secrets and touch­ing it up and restor­ing it, and put it on per­ma­nent exhi­bi­tion in London. And this is where it gets interesting.

In 1836, a young assis­tant edi­tor from a little-known lit­er­ary jour­nal called The Southern Literary Review went to go and see the exhi­bi­tion and wrote his review of it. And he said, 

No exhi­bi­tion of the kind has ever elicit­ed so gen­er­al atten­tion as the chess play­er of Mälzel. Wherever seen it has been an object of intense curios­i­ty, to all per­sons who think. Yet the ques­tion of its modus operan­di is still unde­ter­mined. Nothing has been writ­ten on this top­ic which can be con­sid­ered as deci­sive — and accord­ing­ly we find every­where men of mechan­i­cal genius, of great gen­er­al acute­ness, and dis­crim­i­na­tive under­stand­ing, who make no scru­ple in pro­nounc­ing the Automaton a pure machine, uncon­nect­ed with human agency in its move­ments, and con­se­quent­ly, beyond all com­par­i­son, the most aston­ish­ing of the inven­tions of mankind. And such it would undoubt­ed­ly be, were they right in their supposition.
Edgar Allan Poe, Maelzel’s Chess-Player”

This young assis­tant edi­tor was Edgar Allan Poe, who two years after this essay would pub­lish his first col­lec­tion of short sto­ries. And it’s actu­al­ly kind of incred­i­ble. It’s real­ly worth read­ing. He lays out the ground­work for some of the ear­ly tropes of sci­ence fic­tion. He estab­lish­es what he calls tales of rati­o­ci­na­tion,” what we today call detec­tive sto­ries. And estab­lish­es an idea of what he called lit­er­ary analy­sis, the use of fic­tion, the use of sto­ries (in his par­tic­u­lar case hor­ror sto­ries) to reveal truths about the world. To show us insight into com­plex sys­tems and structures.

It’s no coin­ci­dence that one of the most sig­nif­i­cant ear­ly pieces of tech­no­log­i­cal crit­i­cism we have comes from a hor­ror writer. Poe did­n’t write hor­ror to tit­il­late, to shock, to scare. He wrote hor­ror because he knew it was a way of talk­ing about com­plex things in the world, a way of reveal­ing some truth, a way of guid­ing read­ers through a com­pli­cat­ed nar­ra­tive that reveals some truth about our­selves towards the end.

150 years after Poe’s incred­i­ble essay, we’re still talk­ing about tech­nol­o­gy as if it’s mag­i­cal. In the 1980s, 46% of Time arti­cles deal­ing with the sub­ject of the per­son­al com­put­er, com­pu­ta­tion­al cul­ture, and the peo­ple involved in the devel­op­ment of the com­put­er, framed those arti­cles in con­text of mag­ic and the occult. 46%.

And the rea­sons for this are com­pli­cat­ed. It’s not as sim­ple as say­ing, Well, you know, tech­nol­o­gy’s hard and it’s dif­fi­cult to explain so they use mag­ic as a metaphor.” It’s about cul­tur­al appro­pri­a­tion. The 1980s was a time of great social change, the end of the Cold War, so shift­ing social and cul­tur­al struc­tures all around the world. And out of what had pre­vi­ous­ly been the realm of experts and a weird sub­cul­ture came this thing called the per­son­al com­put­er, and peo­ple had to fig­ure out a way of deal­ing with that. And the best way of deal­ing with that was to assim­i­late it using a lan­guage that peo­ple were already famil­iar with, the lan­guage of mag­ic and the occult. Because we need these com­plex sys­tems explained. We need them struc­tured for us in order that we can actu­al­ly bring them into our lives.

A bell curve labeled with "horror" at the left side, "reasonable expectations" in the middle area, and "magic" at the right side.

And of course when mag­ic goes wrong, the nar­ra­tive of mag­ic can quick­ly turn to hor­ror. If you’ve build a tac­it nar­ra­tive that sug­gests that all tech­nol­o­gy is some­how mag­i­cal, then when it goes wrong of course it becomes hor­ri­fy­ing. We kind of con­struct, inter­nal­ly, a bell curve of what we rea­son­ably expect tech­nol­o­gy to do. So what we can expect a cer­tain tech­nol­o­gy, par­tic­u­lar­ly autonomous tech­nolo­gies and com­pu­ta­tion­al tech­nolo­gies to do, and then we struc­ture our­selves with­in that. So for instance if you took Facebook, the mid­dle of this bell curve might be your dai­ly Facebook use, a cou­ple of likes, shar­ing a GIF, spy­ing on your ex, that kind of stuff.

Towards the top end, you’d have quite joy­ous expe­ri­ences, per­haps. So, that said ex send­ing you a pri­vate mes­sage invit­ing you to go for a drink, accom­pa­nied by feel­ings of joy and per­haps slight inadequacy.

Towards the low­er end, you’d have things like some­one break­ing into your Facebook account to take your per­son­al details to get into your Amazon account to con­vince your cred­it card com­pa­ny that they’re you and steal all your mon­ey. Not so joy­ous. Bit hor­ri­ble, really.

But still with­in the frame­work of rea­son­able expec­ta­tions, because we’ve heard about these sto­ries. We know how that sys­tem works well enough to be able to bal­ance those risks and benefits.

Outside of that, you then have rea­son­able things that are unex­pect­ed. And I use rea­son­able” in the sense of ratio­nal. It’s ratio­nal­iz­able. And that might be for instance Apple last week decid­ing to brick every­one’s iPhone who’d had it repaired. Totally rea­son­able. It was ratio­nal­iz­able. It’s not mag­ic. But it was unex­pect­ed. And it kind of changed those boundaries.

Beyond that, at the far end, you have hor­ror and mag­ic. Horror, the unimag­in­able. Worse than the most dread­ed pos­si­bil­i­ty. And at the oth­er end mag­ic, the impos­si­ble. The phys­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble. And mag­ic is the thing that tech­nol­o­gy angles towards. We angle to achieve mag­i­cal things, but often end up with horror.

Still from the movie "Ringu" showing a girl with her face obscured by hair crawling out of a television set

A great exam­ple of how these expec­ta­tions work and what hap­pens when they go wrong is the 1998 Japanese super­nat­ur­al hor­ror film Ringu. The hor­ror of Ringu worked because we built a set of expec­ta­tions about how a TV, a video play­er, and a tape should work. Worst case sce­nario, video play­er chews up tape, small house fire. Not venge­ful spir­it of mur­dered teenage girl climb­ing out of tele­vi­sion to devour your soul. The hor­ror of Ringu is in that col­lapsed expec­ta­tion. The sense of uncer­tain­ty and insta­bil­i­ty that’s sud­den­ly intro­duced to both the view­ers and the victims.

And in a the­o­ret­i­cal sense there’s real­ly no dif­fer­ence between the venge­ful spir­it of a mur­dered teenage girl crawl­ing out of the tele­vi­sion to devour your soul and cats try­ing to catch mice on an iPad. To the cats, much like the girl in Ringu, the world of the screen and the phys­i­cal world are one con­tin­u­ous real­i­ty. Why should­n’t the mice come out the side of the iPad? They don’t have a frame­work for what the rea­son­able expec­ta­tions of the behav­ior of that tech­nol­o­gy are. And in a sense, the cats are kind of angled to the oth­er end of that bell curve. They’re going for mag­ic. They’re going for an iPad that can pro­duce mice from nowhere.

Sorry. On with the show.

This is an incred­i­bly impor­tant piece of footage. It’s got a French name that I’m not even going to try and pro­nounce, but in English it’s often called The Arrival of the Mail Train.” It’s a fifty sec­ond film that was made in 1895 by the Lumière broth­ers, and it’s very sig­nif­i­cant for being one of the first pieces of mov­ing image that was shown to large pub­lic audi­ences, one of the first pieces of mov­ing image to go into what would become cinemas. 

And it’s accom­pa­nied by an urban myth that we often hear. There’s a cou­ple of indi­ca­tions that myth might be true. But the urban myth says that upon see­ing it, peo­ple fled the cin­e­ma. They saw this train rush­ing towards them, and they ran out the cin­e­ma scream­ing. You see, peo­ple had expe­ri­ence of trains (Trains are big heavy met­al things that destroy things that get in their path.) but did­n’t have expe­ri­ence of mov­ing image. They had­n’t yet built a series of expec­ta­tions about what they might expect mov­ing image to do, and so they ran. They ran in fear, in terror.

This is a video that came out last year that is very sim­i­lar­ly framed, inter­est­ing­ly, but fea­tures some Colombian guys test­ing out and show­ing off the auto­mat­ic stop­ping capa­bil­i­ties of their new Volvo. Guess where this is going.


With pre­dictable results, right? If there’s a slid­ing scale at one end of which is Europeans run­ning out of cin­e­mas in the late 19th cen­tu­ry, and the oth­er one is cats with iPads, this is firm­ly in cats with iPads ter­ri­to­ry. This is up there. Roughly a hun­dred years of edu­ca­tion that says if a car is accel­er­at­ing towards you, get out of the way” have just gone. Gone. Because of a soft­ware gim­mick. The insta­bil­i­ty this cre­ates is incred­i­ble. That’s why we have so many dis­cus­sions about autonomous vehi­cles and things like that.

Volvo lat­er issued a state­ment say­ing the rea­son this hap­pened was because the car did not have the pedes­tri­an detec­tion soft­ware pack­age, which is option­al. It’s 2015 and pedes­tri­an detec­tion is an option­al add-on? No, that should be built into the firmware of the thing.

So these kind of col­laps­es of real­i­ty and expec­ta­tion are start­ing to hap­pen more and more. And this becomes incred­i­bly wor­ry­ing when we talk about these tech­nolo­gies being brought into the home. Because the home is a thing you need to sur­vive as a bio­log­i­cal ani­mal. It gives you shel­ter and heat and food and light and water and things like that. And now sud­den­ly these incred­i­bly fal­li­ble, desta­bi­liz­ing objects are com­ing into that envi­ron­ment. The smart fridge is the gold­en fleece of the Internet of Things, that sort of thing that every­one’s been aim­ing for since the 1970s but nev­er seems to get near to. And you can imag­ine what might hap­pen if a smart fridge sud­den­ly starts behav­ing [inaudi­ble; fol­low­ing video starts playing].

Suddenly we end up with a world of haunt­ed hous­es, where fridges are mal­func­tion­ing because of firmware fail­ures or what­ev­er. And the haunt­ed house is a real­ly well-established part of the hor­ror genre. One of my favorite haunt­ed house films is the orig­i­nal House on Haunted Hill, and also the remake, which is pret­ty good. But the thing about House on Haunted Hill is that it’s not a super­nat­ur­al thriller. It does­n’t have any super­nat­ur­al ghosts or any­thing in it. What hap­pens in House on Haunted Hill is that Vincent Price uses the super­nat­ur­al, man­u­fac­tures a haunt­ed house, in order to kill his wife and her lover. So he uses this build­ing of this air of spir­i­tu­al­i­ty and haunt­ed­ness in order to per­form a sim­ple, every­day mur­der. Not every­day, hope­ful­ly. You know.

But that’s quite a com­mon tac­tic, to cre­ate a vis­age of some­thing going on that real­ly isn’t going on, and you as the view­er don’t even find out till near the end that’s the truth. Alfred Gell, who’s an incred­i­ble tech­nol­o­gy writer, would call this a tech­nol­o­gy of enchant­ment, which he defines as,

tech­ni­cal strate­gies that exploit innate or derived psy­cho­log­i­cal bias­es so as to enchant the oth­er per­son and cause him or her to per­ceive social real­i­ty in a way that is favor­able to the social inter­est of the enchanter.
Alfred Gell, Technology and Magic”

That’s a long way of say­ing that basi­cal­ly a tech­nol­o­gy of enchant­ment is any­thing that deceives you, any­thing that cre­ates a fic­tion or a sense of real­i­ty that sim­ply isn’t true. And you can think here of every­thing from adver­tis­ing to the prob­lem of the fil­ter bub­ble on the Internet.

The title screen of the video game Doom shown on the display of a printer

So how does this start to look when it’s moved into the house? This, two years ago, was kind of an inter­est­ing exam­ple of where some secu­ri­ty experts man­aged to hack a print­er over WiFi and replace the firmware with the video game Doom. It’s a fun trick and it was kind of nice, but it expos­es the struc­tur­al prob­lems of these kinds of devices. Any device can be hacked in this way, any­thing. And if you’re putting things on it that you need to live, things that you need to eat, things that sup­ply you with heat and water and things like that, then that’s real­ly problematic.

Nest has been repeat­ed­ly hacked, sev­er­al times. It’s been shown to be very easy to hack. It’s also, more sin­is­ter­ly per­haps, been used a lot in DDoS attacks. We know that they get used as nodes when attack­ing oth­er peo­ple. So your Nest might not be haunt­ing you, but it might be haunt­ing some­one else.

And it does­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly have to be a malev­o­lent action in order to haunt some­one. Sometimes just sim­ply ill-considered, badly-designed stuff can be real­ly haunt­ing. Samsung last year released a smart TV. The smart thing about the TV is that it’s voice-controlled. Digging through the pri­va­cy pol­i­cy, some researchers found that it said,

Samsung may col­lect and your device may cap­ture voice com­mands and asso­ci­at­ed texts so that we can pro­vide you with Voice Recognition fea­tures and eval­u­ate and improve the features.
Samsung Privacy Policy–SmartTV Supplement [lat­er mod­i­fied]

That’s the old we’re improv­ing your expe­ri­ence thing.”

Please be aware that if your spo­ken words include per­son­al or oth­er sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion, that infor­ma­tion will be among the data cap­tured and trans­mit­ted to a third par­ty through your use of Voice Recognition.
Samsung Privacy Policy–SmartTV Supplement [lat­er mod­i­fied]

That’s Samsung say­ing to you, When you’re in your liv­ing room, don’t say any­thing you would­n’t want any­one else to hear.” In your liv­ing room. That’s baf­fling that that has been designed in. It does­n’t make any sense.

Photo of the Fisher Price Smart Toy Bear

Perhaps more wor­ry­ing­ly, this was two weeks ago, Fisher Price’s Smart Toy Bear. I’m not sure why ted­dy bears need to be con­nect­ed to the Internet, but there we are. It’s the age we’re in. Fisher Price, it turned that the API they had for these smart bears that would inter­act with chil­dren, was just wide open. Anyone could access it. Anyone could get into that API and find out the name, age, gen­der, and loca­tion of any of the chil­dren with these bears. That’s pret­ty ter­ri­ble. So there was a brouha­ha. Fisher Price apol­o­gized and they said they’d rec­ti­fied the prob­lem. Their method of rec­ti­fy­ing the prob­lem was to say in the pri­va­cy pol­i­cy, again very deep,

You acknowl­edge and agree that any infor­ma­tion you send or receive dur­ing your use of the site may not be secure and may be inter­cept­ed or lat­er acquired by unau­tho­rized parties.
[NB: this is actu­al­ly from the terms of use of VTech, who had a sim­i­lar hack­ing issue around the same time as Fisher Price]

In oth­er words, you’re respon­si­ble for our ter­ri­ble API.” And there’s a whole thing here about how pri­va­cy poli­cies and end user license agree­ments are often the most over­looked bit of the design and used for estab­lish­ing the rela­tion­ship between users and devel­op­ers in com­pa­nies and stuff. And because users are the last peo­ple who ever look at those things, it’s often very exploitative.

Smart locks are per­haps the most baf­fling of all the Internet of Things projects. I don’t know what’s wrong with locks that requires them to now be made con­nect­ed to the Internet. They were fine in the first place. The August is one of the most notable exam­ples of the smart lock. It’s one of the most wide­ly sold and wide­ly reviewed. It essen­tial­ly works by detect­ing when your phone is near through Bluetooth, and then auto­mat­i­cal­ly lock­ing or unlock­ing the door accord­ing­ly. Wired when review­ing this (and they get kind of breath­less over any­thing with an LED in) said that it only worked about 80% of the time. That’s not a great stat for some­thing that keeps all your stuff safe, right? That’s pret­ty terrible. 

Beyond that, we know that phones are full of prob­lems and bugs. Bluetooth does­n’t work often. WiFi can col­lapse. Power… You still have to take your key with you with this thing—that’s the laugh­able thing—because if your phone runs out of bat­tery, you’ve got to open the lock the old way. Locks are pret­ty well-designed. They’ve got a real kind of good UX thing with the whole clunk, turn going on. It’s quite healthy, I think. So, smart locks, baffling.

So, two hun­dred years after Poe’s incred­i­ble essay (I real­ly hope every­one reads it) and we’re still talk­ing about tech­nol­o­gy in terms of mag­ic and the occult. We’re still look­ing for some mag­i­cal solu­tion through it. I had before a slide from Nest’s Magic of Home” advert, but I did­n’t want to go too deep on Nest. And that’s fine, that’s fine, that’s how we assim­i­late com­plex sys­tems and tech­nolo­gies into our lives. Because we don’t have time to actu­al­ly crit­i­cal­ly engage with them on any deep lev­el. So mag­ic is a help­ful metaphor.

But we have to be aware that when you cre­ate mag­ic or occult things, when they go wrong they become hor­ror. Because we cre­ate tech­nolo­gies to soothe our cul­tur­al and social anx­i­eties, in a way. We cre­ate these things because we’re wor­ried about secu­ri­ty, we’re wor­ried about cli­mate change, we’re wor­ried about threat of ter­ror­ism. Whatever it is. And these devices pro­vide a kind of stop­gap for help­ing us feel safe or pro­tect­ed or whatever. 

But in doing so we run this risk, and all those objects prove this, of unleash­ing a stream of use­less crap on peo­ple that isn’t mag­i­cal, and actu­al­ly just adds more hor­ror. In the 1980s, Time believed that the per­son­al com­put­er was the mag­i­cal solu­tion. It would make sense of the world. Suddenly peo­ple would have pow­er, mag­ic pow­er. Then it was vir­tu­al real­i­ty. Then the web. Then search. Then Web 2.0. WiFi. Social net­works. Big Data. Augmented real­i­ty. The Internet of Things. Open data. Civic tech. Bitcoin.

The peo­ple who tell us these things are going to save us are called evan­ge­lists. The peo­ple who crave them are called fetishists; the belief in some high­er pow­er inside of objects. But mag­ic isn’t real. Horror is. No one in this room will ever expe­ri­ence mag­ic because it’s phys­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble. But regret­tably, most peo­ple will expe­ri­ence hor­ror. The death of a loved one or a vio­lent crime, that hap­pens. That’s a real thing. 

The Wired writer, writ­ing about his expe­ri­ence with the smart lock, found one day when he got home that his house was wide open. The smart lock had mal­func­tioned and just opened. Couldn’t fig­ure out why. Turned out lat­er it was incom­pat­i­ble with anoth­er app. Again, not a prob­lem keys have. And he said some­thing quite har­row­ing. He said, 

I haven’t been able to get to sleep with­out secur­ing the chain since then. I get freaked out at the prospect of some­one walk­ing through my unlocked door and stand­ing over my wife and me while we sleep.
Joe Brown, Review: August Smart Lock”

His home had become a haunt­ed house. The unimag­in­able had hap­pened. Horror had struck him. And we can’t design for that. You can’t design for the unimag­in­able because it would be para­dox­i­cal­ly pre­scient to be able to do so. No one can do that. But being aware that in try­ing to cre­ate mag­i­cal solu­tions we unleash the pos­si­bil­i­ty of hor­ror is real­ly important. 

Ambrose Bierce is anoth­er incred­i­ble his­tor­i­cal fig­ure (Read his Wikipedia page. Just a mad­ly bril­liant guy.) dis­ap­peared in 1915, going to fight in the Mexican rev­o­lu­tion. He was also a devo­tee of Poe. He was quite famous for writ­ing a thing called The Devil’s Dictionary, which is a satir­i­cal dic­tio­nary. But he also wrote a short sto­ry that I love called The Damned Thing.”

In The Damned Thing,” there’s a small American set­tle­ment of eight or nine peo­ple who are slow­ly being killed off, and at first they blame each oth­er, they sus­pect a mur­der­er’s loose. But in the end, they real­ize that they’re being stalked by an invis­i­ble mon­ster. Perhaps the most unimag­in­able hor­ror, a hor­ror so unimag­in­able that it’s invis­i­ble. And it ends with the main char­ac­ter sort of plead­ing his san­i­ty to the sky, shout­ing his bene­dic­tion. He says,

As with sounds, so with col­ors. At each end of the solar spec­trum the chemist can detect the pres­ence of what are known as actinic” rays. They rep­re­sent colors—integral col­ors in the com­po­si­tion of light—which we are unable to dis­cern. The human eye is an imper­fect instru­ment; its range is but a few octaves of the real chro­mat­ic scale.” I am not mad; there are col­ors that we can not see.

And, God help me! the Damned Thing is of such a color!
Ambrose Bierce, The Damned Thing”

Thank you.

Nicolas Nova: Quick ques­tion for you. I think some­one in the room asked whether you’d be inter­est­ed in run­ning for may­or of San Francisco. [Tobias laughs] Well…no com­ment on that.

Tobias Revell: No, no com­ment. I don’t want to get involved in pol­i­tics at this ear­ly stage in my career.

Nova: My oth­er ques­tion was about some­thing you said in the con­clu­sion, there’s no way to design for that.” But as a design­er, how you work is relat­ed to that. You can talk a lit­tle bit about your spec­u­la­tive design prac­tice, broadly.

Revell: Well, yeah. I work in spec­u­la­tive design, which is in a sense a kind of fuzz test­ing of design. It’s mak­ing real­ly per­haps unex­pect­ed out­comes, try­ing to make the unex­pect­ed real in order to test it on peo­ple and see how they feel about it. It’s a field of design that ful­ly rec­og­nizes that in any devel­op­ment there’s trade-offs. Someone’s going to suf­fer, some­thing’s going to go wrong. And rec­og­niz­ing that and invit­ing peo­ple to real­ize that as part of this nar­ra­tive is real­ly impor­tant. It’s fine to say that tech­nol­o­gy is mag­ic, but it’s also fine to say, well we’ve all seen The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” We know what hap­pened there.

Nova: Thank you.

Revell: Thank you.

Further Reference

Bio page for Tobias and ses­sion descrip­tion at the Lift Conference web site.

Tobias com­posed a short video set­ting the Lumière broth­ers train clip and the car auto-stopping test side by side, show­ing how both demon­strate total faith in what the tech­nol­o­gy claims to be and that it will stop, despite the obvi­ous outcome.”

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.