Paper submitted and accepted by World Future Review.
LINK
This paper introduces and contextualises Climate Futures, an experiment in which AI was repurposed as a ‘co-author’ of climate stories and a co-designer of climate-related images that facilitate reflections on present and future(s) of living with climate change. It converses with histories of writing and computation, including surrealistic ‘algorithmic writing’, recombinatory poems and ‘electronic literature’. At the core lies a reflection about how machine learning’s associative, predictive and regenerative capacities can be employed in playful, critical and contemplative goals. Our goal is not automating writing (as in product-oriented applications of AI). Instead, as poet Charles Hartman argues, ‘the question isn’t exactly whether a poet or a computer writes the poem, but what kinds of collaboration might be interesting’ (1996, p. 5). STS scholars critique labs as future-making sites and machine learning modelling practices and, for example, describe them also as fictions. Building on these critiques and in line with ‘critical technical practice’ (Agre, 1997), we embed our critique of ‘making the future’ in how we employ machine learning to design a tool for looking ahead and telling stories on life with climate change. This has involved engaging with climate narratives and machine learning from the critical and practical perspectives of artistic research. We trained machine learning algorithms (i.e. GPT-2 and AttnGAN) using climate fiction novels (as a dataset of cultural imaginaries of the future). We prompted them to produce new climate fiction stories and images, which we edited to create a tarot-like deck and a story-book, thus also playfully engaging with machine learning’s predictive associations. The tarot deck is designed to facilitate conversations about climate change. How to imagine the future beyond scenarios of resilience and the dystopian? How to aid our transition into different ways of caring for the planet and each other?
At this moment, charging your electric vehicle is common good, however smart charging is still a novelty in the developing phase with many unknowns. A smart charging system monitors, manages and restricts the charging process to optimize energy consumption. The need for, and advantages of smart charging electric vehicles are clear cut from the perspective of the government, energy suppliers and sustainability goals. But what about the advantages and disadvantages for the people who drive electric cars? What opportunities are there to support the goals of the user to make smart charging desirable for them? By means of qualitative Co-design methods the underlying motives of early adaptors for joining a smart charging service were uncovered. This was done by first sensitizing the user about their current and past encounters with smart charging to make them more aware of their everyday experiences. This was followed by another generative method, journey mapping and in-depth interviews to uncover the core values that drove them to participate in a smart charging system. Finally, during two co-design sessions, the participants formed groups in which they were challenged to design the future of smart charging guided by their core values. The three main findings are as follows. Firstly, participants are looking for ways to make their sustainable behaviour visible and measurable for themselves. For example, the money they saved by using the smart charging system was often used as a scoreboard, more than it was about theactual money. Secondly, they were more willing to participate in smart charging and discharging (sending energy from their vehicle back to the grid) if it had a direct positive effect on someone close to them. For example, a retiree stated that he was more than willing to share the energy of his car with a neighbouring family in which both young parents work, making them unable to charge their vehicles at times when renewable energy is available in abundance. The third and last finding is interrelated with this, it is about setting the right example. The early adopters want to show people close to them that they are making an effort to do the right thing. This is known as the law of proximity and is well illustrated by a participant that bought a second-hand, first-generation Nissan Leaf with a range of just 80 km in the summer and even less in winter. It isn’t about buying the best or most convenient car but about showing the children that sometimes it takes effort to do the right thing. These results suggest that there are clear opportunities for suppliers of smart EV charging services to make it more desirable for users, with other incentives than the now commonly used method of saving money. The main takeaway is that early adopters have a desire for their sustainable behaviour to be more visible and tangible for themselves and their social environment. The results have been translated into preliminary design proposals in which the law of proximity is applied.
