文化生產 dNetwork

IUF : Panel 2 智慧器官 Intelligent Organs

緊接著的智慧器官專題,則將城市重新帶回創造與反叛的場域。試想高樓聳立的信義計畫區與精準的公車動態資訊,便利物流體系帶來的快時尚消費以及網路購物熱潮,以及因應年底選舉充斥各式媒體高喊拼經濟的競選廣告⋯⋯都會景觀、日常經驗與意識型態皆由政府與資本一手打造,促成一具井然有序的器官身體;儘管我們不盡然得以體悟德勒茲抽象的無器官身體,但如何透過公民間的技術改造,分化並實踐出不同的邏輯與價值觀,進而在虛擬與肉身之間重塑屬於公民的智慧器官,奪回民主,遂成為本次討論的核心命題。

代表g0v受邀的鄧東波,曾擔任台灣開放街圖社群的理事長,並長年致力於開放政府資料的實務發展。由他帶來的開放街圖空氣盒子路殺社的三個公民科學(Citizen Science)計畫分享,指出了在開放資料生態系統中,如何透過公民科技(civic tech)扮演政府與民眾之間居中調和的角色。一般民眾雖然往往對於政府開放資料的要求與使用,在直觀上與具備高端運算技術的企業和駭客社群作為聯想,但透過群眾外包的方式匯集群體智慧與社會需求,卻能有效建構出開放資料的應用,以及以市民服務為導向的科技創新。

新技術的研發、資料近用的改造以及技術物的應用不僅涉及技術門檻與傳播網絡的問題,同時也反映美學制域(aesthetic regime)底下的政治主體以及感性經驗。由Jacques Rancière的《美學政治》(The Politics Of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible)作為開場,任教於東海大學社會學系的彭松嶽針對Code for America在都柏林與波士頓掀起的Brigade計畫進行案例研究,探討公民感測(citizen sensing)以及公民駭進(civic hacking)的發展觀察,重新勾勒出數位治理底下的都會生活與社會意義。

智慧器官不僅僅凸顯新的都市問題,更多時候是透過新技術為舊問題尋求可能的出路。可持續城市(Sustainable City)的想像並不單單僅僅是生態與世代正義上的,更包含現下迫切的民生議題。回想1989年夜宿忠孝東路的無殼蝸牛運動,到2014年帝寶前的巢運,房價高漲以及弱勢族群租屋問題已然成為台北都會發展的宿疾。儘管當年運動熱潮轉型的崔媽媽基金會致力於居住扶助與租屋服務,專業者都市改革組織(OURs)亦對於都市空間改造與政策議題批判努力不懈,但住宅問題似乎尚未得到全面性的滿意回應。透過整合規劃者專業與居民使用經驗,施普雷河岸住宅合作社(Spreefeld Cooperative)成功解決了技術官僚與居民參與之間的隔閡困境,在柏林施普雷河岸打造具備開放空間的多功能住宅單元;而id22協同跨領域與網絡技術專注於住宅問題的研究及其網絡平台實驗,則重新橋樑了新興科技與傳統非營利組織的運營。來自柏林的Michael LaFond將透過柏林住宅合作社的案例為台北市民苦惱已久的住宅問題提出一個另類的解套。

 

鄧東波(Deng Dongpo)

我們可以從開放式參與中獲得群體智慧嗎? 三個公民科學計畫的經驗

這個演講將由三個公民科學計畫(開放街圖 、空氣盒子、路殺社)的參與經驗中,分析開放式參與是否能夠獲得群體智慧。公民科學是一個透過分散式且協同合作方式,開放地徵求一般民眾參與,以解決科學問題的方法,而群體智慧是指以群眾外包方式的協同合作所創造的智慧,有別於專業的或學術的知識。一個開放式參與的公民科學計畫中經常有多樣的參與者、想法、和資訊交雜,想從這樣複雜的環境中淬鍊出群體智慧是一個挑戰。從開放式參與匯集群體智慧是一連串的跨界與轉化的過程,這個演講將從工具、資料、素養、文化等元素來剖析開放式參與的問題,以及因應之道。

 

 

Can we obtain collective intelligence from open collaboration? Lessons from three citizen science projects 

This talk will analyze an issue whether collective intelligence can be obtained from open collaboration on the basis of the experiences participating three citizen science projects (OpenStreetMap, AirBox, Reptile Road Mortality). Citizen science is a distributed, collaborative problem-solving approach for tackling scientific problem through open call. Collective intelligence is knowledge created by crowdsourced collaboration. Such knowledge is different from professionally or academically generated knowledge. An openly collaborative citizen science project often consists of complex participates, perspectives, and information. It is a challenge to extract and refine collective intelligence from such complex environment. From open collaboration to collective intelligence is a series of crossover and transformation processes. This talk will identify the issues of open collaboration from tools, data, literacy, and culture, as well as share the experiences for handling the issues.

 

彭松嶽(Perng Sung-Yueh)

在都柏林與波士頓感測、駭進、與期待到來中的都市

數據科技、預測分析、以及各種的感測技術,都是讓政府與財團,藉著將城市轉化成運算系統,而能夠預期未來城市運作的數位科技創新。在這樣的系統當中,未來城市被當成是具有可預測的規律性,而在其中不被渴望但卻有可能發生的事件,可透過這些系統事先移除。但是這樣的面對城市未來的方式,亦造成許多問題,包括科技官僚與財團願景佔據優先地位、持續增強目前 (數據) 科學知識實踐的合理性、排除公眾闡明他們想要的科技與未來的機會與管道。

但是有其他的方式預期即將到來的城市嗎?藉由探討在都柏林與波士頓的公民駭進(civic hacking)、公民科技(civic tech)、與公民感測(citizen sensing),我們可以瞭解他們支持的價值、組織運作方式、與他們面臨的困難。這次討論的對象包括 ‘Code for’ 運動在都柏林與波士頓的分部,女性友善的軟體寫作團體、與開放科學組織 Public Lab。這些組織與團體有不同強調的面向與實作的方式,展現他們不同的重塑感測科技、預測和數位創新之社會意義的方式,並更進一步挑戰既有的治理、科學、與科技之實踐。此外,這些組織協調策略與結構的也需重新構成,以使他們支持的價值能夠落實在實踐當中,且能夠維持組織本身的持續進行。這些組織有各自面臨的困難,但這些困境警示了將和諧的關係作為想像未來城市的理想之不恰當。相對的,對支持相似價值的組織而言,能夠預期與處置爭議性的議題,可作為集體拒斥財團化與科技官僚化之城市未來想像的動力來源。

Sensing, hacking and anticipating cities to come in Dublin and Boston

Data-intensive technologies, predictive analytics and all kinds of sensing technology are technological innovations that are increasingly incorporated into governments and corporations for anticipating future cities through understanding them as computing systems. In such systems, future cities are rendered as predictable regularities where likely but undesirable events can be revealed through models and predictions, and removed before they are actualised. Many issues arise from this approach to city’s future: it prioritises technocratic and corporate visions; reinforces the legitimacy of current (data) scientific knowledge practices; precludes public participation from articulating the technologies, and crucially, futures desirable for them.

This presentation asks if the anticipation of cities to come can be conducted by other means. It explores civic hacking, civic tech and citizen sensing in Dublin and Boston to understand what the values these initiatives support, how they are organised and what difficulties are still ahead. Several case studies will be discussed, focusing on the ‘Code for’ brigades in Dublin and Boston, female-friendly coding initiatives and the open science initiative Public Lab. With differing emphases and practices, these initiatives demonstrate how sensing technologies, predictions and digital innovations can be produced differently and tasked with challenging established governance, science and technology practices. Further, these initiatives require reconfigurations of coordination strategies and structures so that the values they support can be realised in practical and sustainable ways. These initiatives face their own challenges, which caution against an idealised imaginary of future cities comprising harmonious relations. Instead, anticipation of agonistic relations among organisations and initiatives sharing similar values, is critical to build collective resistance against the corporate and technocratic shaping of urban futures.

 

Michael LaFond

共善都市規劃與社區發展:公與私之間,以柏林為例

為了最終在「可持續城市」(Sustainable City)之路上邁進一步——並在文化、社會、生態和經濟各方面都達成公正的城市——我們需要給予「智慧市民」和「智慧團體」更多的支持。不僅在於更多的參與和更多的「自己做」(DIY)以鼓勵市民的企業精神,此外,更需要提倡「一起做」(DIT),讓市民、合作社和民主結構相互協作,以新自治(New Municipalism)的理想支持智慧+強健的市民以及智慧+強健的團體和城市。

公司之間的結構包含了所有制與組織的形式,這些結構能有效、可持續、相互交流且愉快地影響與協調民眾。如何理解共(Commons)的可能性以及共同運動(Commoning)的可能性?如何為了共善而協作?我將透過幾個傑出的實踐案例及其討論來闡釋上述這些原則,並將特別介紹我在《包羅萬象的共同住宅》一書所總結的那些柏林計畫。

 

Common Good Urban Planning and Community Development: Somewhere Between Private and Public. Examples from Berlin

To finally make progress on our path toward the “Sustainable City” – the culturally, socially, ecologically as well as economically just city – we need to be giving much more support to “Smart Citizens” – and beyond that to “Smart Groups”. Not only more participation and more DIY – in the sense of entrepreneurial citizens – is to be encouraged – but beyond that much more DIT – in the sense of cooperating citizens and cooperative, democratic structures. Smart+Strong Citizens as well as Smart+Strong Groups and Cities are to be supported – with the idea of a New Municipalism.

Somewhere between private and public there are structures including forms of ownership and organisation – which can involve and coordinate people in effective, sustainable, communicative, and convivial ways. How to understand the possibilities of the Commons and the practices of Commoning? How to work together for the Common Good? Best Practices are presented and discussed to illustrate these principles, especially including projects from Berlin, as summarized in the publication CoHousing Inclusive.

X