The Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) theory is the most important theoretical contribution that has shaped the field of human–computer interaction. The theory states that humans interact with computers as if they are human, and is the cornerstone on which all social human–machine communication (e.g., chatbots, robots, virtual agents) are designed. However, the theory itself dates back to the early 1990s, and, since then, technology and its place in society has evolved and changed drastically. Here we show, via a direct replication of the original study, that participants no longer interact with desktop computers as if they are human. This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology, an important concept that needs to be taken into account when designing and researching human–computer interaction.
Was the original paper ever replicated? Cause if not, that’s too strong a conclusion. A simpler explanation could be that the original paper got something wrong and wasn’t replicable.
"This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology[..]"
I think we can see this unfold in real time with large language model based chatbots like ChatGPT. First they seem almost human and the initial reaction is to treat them like that. Always say "Thank you!" and potentially get angry at them for being wrong. It doesn't take long though, to realize that the bot is a bot and even if it speaks human language it behaves significantly different from a real human. Then the human behavior starts to change as well and the bot is treated differently.
And also, we get better answers from LLMs for solving captchas if we claim that the hard-to-decipher letters were written on our dear grandmother's Christmas ornament. I find this quite amusing.
This makes sense if you think about chatGPT as a ML model and not as a sentient AI. Its training data would show that asking nicely elicits better answers.
Wonder whether 1.) technical proficiency and 2.) age of introduction to computer would make a difference
Because totally anecdotally, I mean it could have been subconscious, but I never remember treating a computer that way. It’s always been… I dunno, a machine.
"In 2004, Peter Nielsen, the air traffic controller on duty at the time of the collision, was murdered in an apparent act of revenge by Vitaly Kaloyev, a Russian citizen whose wife and two children had been killed in the accident."
Yup, murdered the only person involved in the collision that didn't actually cause it. Celebrated as a hero because "honor" is achieved by murdering an unarmed man who didn't kill your family, rather than the people in charge of the airline and ATC company that did. After all honor is defined by many as "murdering someone, regardless of what they did".
Not to justify the murder or anything, but I don’t think that Nielsen can be said to have zero responsibility. He voluntarily worked in such an unsafe environment.
Ultimately if you work in a safety-critical field and you don’t speak up when something is very wrong, then you are just as responsible as anyone else.
Plugging away at your job while maintenance people disconnect the phones from ATC is negligent inaction. Without a working phone line the ATC was clearly offline in a very literal sense and he should have recognized that and either passed the responsibilities to another ATC and/or closed the airspace.
They boiled the frog on him. They had redundancy - two controllers, two phone lines, two collision warning systems.
They removed one controller. That was... not great, but it seemed okay.
They removed one collision warning system, for a short window. That was... not great, but it seemed okay.
They removed both phone lines. They didn't tell him. That wasn't okay, but he couldn't know that until he needed them.
----
This also disregards that someone is always in the chair. Okay, let's say he quits. Then they're short an additional controller, making the situation worse, and someone else is still sitting in the chair when the exact same thing happens. "He voluntarily worked in an unsafe environment" is just a deflection from the responsibility of the people who have the authority and the opportunity not to make the system unsafe. His only agency was to quit his job or not, which wouldn't have any effect on the outcome.
> This also disregards that someone is always in the chair. Okay, let's say he quits. Then they're short an additional controller, making the situation worse, and someone else is still sitting in the chair when the exact same thing happens. "He voluntarily worked in an unsafe environment" is just a deflection from the responsibility of the people who have the authority and the opportunity not to make the system unsafe.
I can sort of see different ways to look at these situations but I usually don't see them that way. While desperately holding together a broken system seems heroic, it assumes that help is on the way. Many times no help is on the way because the system is sort of barely functioning so there is no priority to improve it. If he left maybe the other controllers would all leave as well, ending the farce.
> His only agency was to quit his job or not, which wouldn't have any effect on the outcome.
He probably wouldn't have been murdered and blamed for the the outcome!
I agree with you, but it sounds like the maintenance causing systems offline happened relatively quickly with no prior communication. In which case Nielsen was stuck trying to manage the two urgent situations that had arisen at the same time.
The reduction from 3 to 2 operators, the acceptance of long breaks when there were two operators so there was only 1 in the room for a prolonged period of time, the pressure to cut costs, the lack of understanding of what systems were down during the upgrade, the surprising loss of hard lines without a tested alternative, the lack of a supervisor concentrating on the upgrades at the time, the lack of appropriate assessment of the risks.
Most of it seems to come down to trying to cut costs and reduce conflict with the staff (the acceptance of the “long breaks” overnight)
None of that lands on the overworked controller trying to do 3 jobs
You're simply misreading it, ATC refers to the specific person(s) responsible at the time.
Perhaps you're tripping over "responsible", it helps to read it as "if you, future person, are in this situation, consider how you could avoid a similar accident, given your position in the system".
It does not necessarily mean "this person is incompetent", or "this person is criminally liable". That's outside the scope of such reports.
If it didn't mean that, then someone in the ATC chair in the exact situation tomorrow would need to helplessly watch the same tragedy play out in front of their eyes, would they not? Even if they'd have the benefit of hindsight in having read this report.
After all they'd be a powerless puppet strung along by systemic causes.
As a point of comparison, the orbital velocity of ISS is 17,000 mph.
The max speed of Unity was given as Mach 2.88. The speed of sound varies from 340 m/s at sea level to 200 m/s at 120,000 feet. So Mach 2.88 would correspond to somewhere between 1000 - 2000 mph depending on where it was attained.
To enter orbit, a vehicle must be simultaneously at orbital altitude _and_ at orbital velocity (in the correct direction).
Furthermore, note that quoting speed as a Mach number is fundamentally only relevant to atmospheric flight. Mach number is referenced to the speed of sound, and sound does not travel in the vacuum of space.
The Virgin Galactic vehicle shoots up to very high altitude but then simply falls back to earth.
I was told this by a doctor and just couldn't believe it was true, turns out good habits like consistent wake time and winding down well before lying in bed are super important.
Same here. Only happens when I am literally exhausted from a week of 3 hour sleep. Don't even drink coffee. Been like this for as long as I can remember
I have no idea of the stats but I usually absent jet lag, otherwise being on a weird schedule, or having my mind spinning about something fall asleep quickly.
I do use melatonin but mostly only in conjunction with international travel.
The Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) theory is the most important theoretical contribution that has shaped the field of human–computer interaction. The theory states that humans interact with computers as if they are human, and is the cornerstone on which all social human–machine communication (e.g., chatbots, robots, virtual agents) are designed. However, the theory itself dates back to the early 1990s, and, since then, technology and its place in society has evolved and changed drastically. Here we show, via a direct replication of the original study, that participants no longer interact with desktop computers as if they are human. This suggests that the CASA Theory may only work for emergent technology, an important concept that needs to be taken into account when designing and researching human–computer interaction.