Let me just check, any questions, anything, anyone want to ask a question? Right, then let me get going again and coming back. There was one, sorry. Just shout at me if I don't realize that you're actually asking. I'm curious if you came across in your research the Cyrillic programming language. What did you discover about that? Yes. So, yeah, I don't have time to go into that specifically because I feel like there's a lot of kind of Soviet and post-Soviet geopolitical implications to that. And also how this was very much fomented during those times of Soviet Union to try to have a lot of their own infrastructure, operating systems, etc. And also now perhaps this also got a bit abandoned in a sense by the younger generation that don't feel like it's worthy like learning to program in Cyrillic alphabet because it's difficult to then interface with the rest of the world. And that's also most often the question that I get asked then because we need those kind of, we need a common language to then to collaborate with one another. But I agree with that. It's just like sometimes like sometimes like the design or the engineering that goes behind those machines then like also demonstrates a lot of like violent thoughts and decisions behind them and that's what I wanted to say with this presentation. Great, thanks. Then let me just go to, actually it was Shusha, let me see. And a little bit about this, I noted down the kind of the identity problem you talked about, but I kind of would like to see how does this connect with pedagogy, because you kind of talked about, but I kind of would like to see how does this connect with pedagogy, because you kind of talked about education, and I think you can also talk about how to approach this identity problem. Especially in critical education of the digital that often goes towards learning new skills, learning to... going deeper into technology that is often met with resistance because people feel they don't want it, they don't want to become a nerd. Not because they have something against nerds, but because they feel that it is not fitting their own self-perception. It's not about learning, it's not about refusal to understanding tech, but it's refusal about becoming somebody else. And that is why a lot of people don't even turn up. So everybody has run workshops in cultural institutions, and even if you write down that there are no there's no special knowledge necessary, people don't turn up because they even don't read so far because that's already pre-decided. And that is very difficult to challenge if you're outside of the already existing school system. And the school system is also, you know, this digital education is a lot about literacy, and then there's a branch into specialization into coding, so the kids learn Scr scratch and things like that and but there is very little about and then at the same time they learn Microsoft Office, you know, and that is completely contradictory and And so I think I observed that with my son That he is already making decisions about what is his field and what is not his field. And that is before I even start, you know, problematizing things. It's already decided. And that is that pedagogical dimension that everyday practice has, and against which, as an educator, then you have to somehow deal with that. And you often fail to deal with that, because it is difficult. And it needs time, and it needs a lot of resources to change normative things like that. And, you know, I don't have a solution how to deal with that, but that's why I'm working to try to understand the situation. Why is that a problem at the end? Because people are not dumb, and they're not unwilling to do something, but it is asking in a way, in a very strange way it is asking too much and I try to understand that situation and I try to develop other tactics of tackling that situation. Thanks, because I kind of I got your question in a minute I'll just connect this one quickly to Linda because I kind of wanted to connect this also to your kind of statement where you were actually asking for rethinking the norm. If you think now about the everyday, is that something you could then see not as a solution but as an approach? Or how do you see that in our everyday kind of practices? How do you rethink that norm? Yeah, I think because I looked at a lot of these things that I would call AI powered perception, so it's basically machine learning and there is a lot of assumptions in how these things are working. So there is a lot of assumptions in how these things are working so there is a lot of assumptions that are implemented into into these things how we assume that we perceive things as humans but also how we assume that we can actually measure things and put them into data and then think that this is somehow like neutral or objective way of dealing with data and that's why I I've been looking a lot on these true artworks that work with machine learning data and critique machine learning data and that's why it also became very important to me to look very critical on my own practice of working with data even if it's just a small data set of artworks but but this isities to kind of look at just one assumption, just ask one question at the time, because there are so many of them embedded in these technologies. And we have an audience question on that. Yo, okay, it works. It's for Shusha regarding your point about this resistance of the users on learning new things or trying to adapt to different systems or different ways of doing things. And I was wondering if... And it's something that I often face, especially when working collectively with other people and trying to proposing new way of doing things or new piece of technology or piece of software to use, for example. And I was wondering if you consider also the fact of exhaustion, because this is something that, the fact of exhaustion because this is something that I don't know it really triggers a lot, like thinking for example in the everyday practice as a user there's always a new piece of software to learn, a new platform to sign in, a new update to download, a new it's really exhausting as you know, as a practice and I wouldn't be so, I don't know so pessimist about the user condition, but more a bit critical on the infrastructural assault on the I don't know you tell us I'm not so sure if that was a question I don't know it was like another perspective. I don't know. It was like another perspective to look at it. Because in... I don't know. I felt in your comment that it was... Yeah. I don't know. That... I don't know. I felt a really negative feeling towards this condition from you. From today's user condition? Or in the pedagogical, maybe you were more referring to the pedagogical situation. But it can also, I don't know like in my educational context for example like I have often been faced with new things to install and new things to download and new things to like I don't know and as a user and as a student and as a human it is more my experience in educational settings if I talk with people about what they do and how they do it, and how they interpret the results of their action, it's extremely interesting. And that users are not the same. So there are a lot of different kind of shapes of users, you know? But we don't have terms for that. Things, this all goes under users. And that this user subjectivity is something that is, in a way, it is discursive and it also it is different in different discourses. So we have a user discourse in human interaction design for example about users which is quite different about the pedagogical discourse about users and it is also different from the nerd discourse about users. And so the user is like a mirror thing. Everything is reflecting in every way, but under the same term. And it is, and I'm fascinated by that and I try to understand how this works and if this is really something you can work with or not and I think you not really can work with but it is very interesting to think through that because a lot of different things then pop up like this liberal subject that is also an issue in and or that was an issue with with the sign-up process in in mastodon and that is also interfering and so this subjectivity thing is very this I mean we are all quite complicated or not complicated that's a nature word but complex we have complex subjectivities so we are educators and you know artists and activists and then we are also you know part of this consumer culture, if you want it or not, but also in difference to other subjectivities, and this is all very complicated. But then we have concepts that seem so straightforward. We talk about users, and that does something for expectations also. I know that from institutional work in the educational sector, if you are trying to get funding, you need to do these discourses. You need to claim about empowerment of users and then this gets another another life but it also is you know sustaining an imaginary that I think is problematic and I try to understand these entanglements through different kind of practices um just like follow up on that and just quickly like this idea of like even exhaustion and also like this unwillingness to learn is a bit like by design as well i believe uh and also because like there was like this further kind of rift between like the programmer and the user and they were just considered like this sort of like dump user that cannot like even access the administrator rights of the computer and cannot install things otherwise it's gonna mess up the system, etc. So there's like this idea of like this kind of idealized sanctified hacker or programmer person that knows things and you are just supposed to look at the shiny interface not question anything and going like with like voice automated systems, AI generated systems, like those machines get more and more black boxed and those companies also benefit from that like this like of course it's like this kind of convenience and like how much we give with that because if you don't question and it's just like plug-and-play Of course is much better or just installing a bunch of like webpack stuff to program like a website Like you don't need necessarily that perhaps like just vanilla JavaScript to do the trick But we're just like kind of led into believing that we need all of those immense libraries, never-ending libraries every day. And yeah, that's also like a kind of bigger symptom of tech industry as a whole, perhaps. I don't know. And there, it again comes very important that we look at this from the perspective of how are we imagining these roles, the hackers or users, or in our cultural products, because those imaginaries are very much supported from movies, from TV series, from computer games, but also art and but they're also like art has like this also like can take the narratives and the games that we have in the database they are really looked from the perspective that it's mostly like kind of these big games and it's also like popular movies and tv series and so on että se on suosittu suurimpien pelien ja myös populariä elokuvia ja TV-seriä. Me yritämme nähdä enemmän viimeisiä, jotka tulevat popularikulttuurista, popular culture, which is also already super spread in today's... There's not so many movies that a lot of people have seen, as it was perhaps before. But then art has also this... Mutta taiteilija on myös tällainen... Puhuin paljon siitä, miten tätä dataa tehtiin ja niin edelleen. Tämän datan saaminen on tietenkin todella tärkeää. Olen myös hyvin ymmärretty näistä tekoista ja siitä, mitä ne ovat. Mutta data oli myös aika huonosti, koska se sanoi asioita, jotka tuntui hyvin selvittäviksi. Mutta yksi asia oli se, että me myös määritimme sentimenttejä, obvious, but one thing was that we were also measuring sentiments or analyzing what kind of sentiment. In the narratives and the games, the most used sentiment that we tagged was helpful, that the machine vision technology is helpful, whereas in artworks that were collected, it was failing, that the machine vision is failing. So there is also like a difference on what kind of imaginaries and perspectives different genres bring forth about these technologies. And just, when coming to Luca's question, just quickly, because there was something which I noted coming back to the question here to wrap it up maybe in that sense. You mentioned or you talked about the practice of meaning. That's kind of how you started your whole presentation. So that's in a way also something maybe you want to quickly elaborate on and then I'll pass over to Luca. Oh, yeah, that's a big topic. Yeah, we can leave it at that. In cultural studies there is that understanding that meaning is not in things. That meaning is produced in quite complex articulations between things and people in terms of identity but also between things and regulations of how you talk about things what is getting enforced what is not enforced what values are sustained to wider context of the things and but also how are things shaped through production, but also how is meaning shaped through production and how is meaning shaped through consumption. So the cultural understanding of consumption is also something that is important and that is not self-evident and that is contributing to what things mean in culture you know and it can change quite quickly and it is not monolithic meaning so it can be quite different from regions to regions or in different cultures or in different languages even or in different age groups or in different parts of the population. So this is quite the circuit of meaning in cultural studies. And there are cultural studies scholars here, so they might even add more complexity to that. And this is part of me as a sensibility, as an artist, I know that everything can be a format. That you're a part with whatever you do in that kind of cultural negotiation. So even how we are sitting here is a form. And it has conventionalities and it contributes to some structures of meaning. And so education is as well. So how we deal in education with things shapes the meaning of things. So the question is how we do that in terms of identity, so the identity of user. Because in education you often address people as users, so as a certain technological practice. And in culture you address people as visitors or spectators, which is also a very strange subject position that could be an extension of that work and we need to be a bit more clear I feel that we need to be more clear about what we are doing I think that was a bit also your question that's kind of where you were hinting at or comment Luca you had Okay, thank you. Just a quick, maybe, I just had this thought or kind of a question, Shusha, when you were, I mean, you didn't really, I think, went so far or elaborated so much. But I was just thinking if you came across or included in this perspective of blurring of the border between users and developers or programmers or geeks or nerds or whatever we call them with all the accessibility of Code online and github and things like that That's a territory of hacking I think to blurring these boundaries so you cannot blur the boundaries by boundaries. So you cannot blur the boundaries by crossing the boundaries. Then you cross them. If you want to blur them you need to establish, you know, a field of practice that is in between. And there is a question, can there be, what kind of technological practice would that be that is between coding and non-coding? I'm more thinking about the definition of the user in your research or whatever, in your research or presentation or in your work where I think it could be challenged that the notion of the user as this, that there is a border between a user and a developer or why isn't the user capable of programming because I think today users are capable of programming. That's my challenge a little bit. We have a double question. Yeah, I was actually in the same a little bit logic as Luca has just mentioned. Like I was thinking about, for example, like the idea of one Soviet computer scientist, Yershov, who wrote an article called Programming is the Second Grammar or the Second Education Literacy, the Second Literacy. the second literacy, and the basic idea was that there could be a society where kind of, he had this idea of lexicon, where there would be kind of a way how to communicate with machines, but you would learn it as something in a school. So basically it's one of the subject could be also educational practice, so pedagogical one. So I was wondering also because he kind of a little bit tried to cross this border also between education and like and what do we do while programming and about languages and collections. What if we're not based in the... Or when the basement of programming is not a language, but this idea of lexicon that would be more like a functionality, how to deal with the code, how to deal with machines, and it will be open to the community that you can add something and kind of change the protocol how to communicate with machines. I think one of the problems with that desire to making programmable even more universal is that it is also furthering you know that idea that that that this is kind of like a master skill, that is computationalism. You know, the idea that there is this position of the programmer, you know, I know that the feeling is magic if you program something and then it does what you have said, you know, it's very powerful. But is this really that imaginary we want to have everybody towards the world? You know? Is that where technical education needs to go, that everybody is programming, reprogramming the world? Is that the master way of relating to the world or acting on the world? And I think that is a question we need to ask ourselves critically. So, you know that blurring Boundary is not only giving agency. It only means enforcing a certain way of seeing the world and also technology. What kind of technology do we mean when we talk about technology? There are also other technologies. And that is something that I'm not so sure that I want to go in that way. Do you have some other ways of programming? No, I think we need to have a much more diverse understanding of what it means to act technologically. So it is not only programming. Also using is acting technology. And it also comes with diversity of technological practice. The audience is kind of warming up. We have three more, I take three more questions. I see there's three more questions coming. technological practice. The audience is kind of warming up. We have three more questions. I see there's three more questions coming. If that's okay for the AMBRO team. No, two and a half. Let's make it quick. I think Davide will give a quick comment because we really want to run quickly through and then we kind of call it a day. We really have to say a good thank you for the whole team, but let's just get started with a quick comment. And then you had a question, a very short one, and then we have one more in the back. Thank you. That brought me a bit like this unpacking the role of the user and the programmer. And you just said like this, there are many more actions and many more tasks. And I think the blurring of the boundaries can also go into the stack because the user stays on the interface and does not have access to anything below that. Then it goes back into I don't know wall cities or something. Customization, but that could be a way of giving them control and possibility of decoration or doing changes that affect things. I will take the next one. I'll leave the three of you to comment on whatever you want so we can speed it up. You had one? Should I say it? Ah, yeah? Okay. I just wanted to say, just a comment, that technology in large is not a common space. So it's not, right now, not the condition that the people using it request technology and define it. Because then it would not be necessary that everyone is programming. Like, yeah. then it would not be necessary that everyone is programming. I got kind of excited during some of these presentations because I saw some hints of things that felt very liberatory, especially because a lot of people think of the stack or whatever you want to call this stuff we use now as kind of, it's kind of debauched, it's very, it's bloated, it's crappy, it doesn't work, it has this huge amount of promise, but then it doesn't deliver and it's full of, I mean, we've been talking about all these problems for the last several days. But maybe some of that problem comes from like the episteme is actually kind of fucked up and that we need to then actually have a different way that we sort of, maybe not necessarily completely start from scratch, but if we could rebuild some of these things with a different framing with a different one that's not necessarily like a consumer subjectivity or hierarchical subjectivity that maybe I don't know do you see anything like maybe where you're optimistic about possibilities. Great, thank you. That means you have each one minutes to respond and then we call it a day because we really have to get going now. We have a nightline coming up. So shall we start with Linda? Okay. So this Hacking Machine Vision was the last article I was writing, and it was supposed to be the article of hope, that after having all the oppressive and failing machine vision, there's still some kind of hope in that we can do this differently. So I think it's like in that way it's still important that we think about this that it's it's these systems that are that are are in place that are the norms that are these assumptions that they are they are still structures and for me hacking comes into into those in in that way of disputing. It's not that they are hacks that change things, but it's this... We have to keep on pushing from all sides and giving these different perspectives into how these technologies are experienced and that's how we can can negotiate like in our everyday lives also and in in that way it's it's like kind of also um it's not it's not like a it's not a radical change it's not in revolution in that sense but it's a it's a it's more this kind of ongoing process of finding your way as a as a user as a programmer and I think that's where you kind of start finding finding that both like those coalition's where you you do things and think things similarly, but also like in your very practical life of thinking like, what is your child learning in school and how they are kind of normalized thinking about technology comes that way as well. Shusha, what is your child learning in school? Scratch and Microsoft Cloud. And in the community of children, WhatsApp and the games, Roblox and Minecraft. So that's the environment children grow up in. It's very difficult to say, no, you can't have WhatsApp. You know? Explain that to a 12-year-old. So even I know it's the right thing to do, I can't do it. I just can't. So he has, what's up? And I feel guilty all the time. And you know that is that kind of user struggle you have all the time. You have to do these complicated negotiation with your children or if you do, I think a lot of us doing support work for parents and family and then you have to explain them how the digital world works and actually you're not talking about technological problem, you're talking about extractive business models and you know to negotiate that for them in order so to make it still navigatable for them and legible for them. So there's a lot of, you know, it's also kind of educational practice we do in the everyday with other people. And I think that is important. And we need, in a way, an understanding that we are doing that all the time and that is also important technological work to do then. Thanks. And Mariana, now final wrap-up and then I would really like to ask David and Eileen to come forward quickly because we can just close off, I think think Mariana quickly yeah I believe my last comments on all of this is also like this idea of perhaps making everyone programmers or if like feeling this need to also train everyone in cyber or like you want to be a ballerina no training cyber you want to be a ballerina? No training cyber. You want to be a fashion designer? No training cyber that's like a common trope in the UK a few years ago and I was like this feels like also like dystopian and like broken promise as well because Like if those like desires from the tech industry right now like come true and like we're just like programming should turn ourselves obsolete and then like if AI is generating everything then like what would all of the people training cyber do if you're not like actually like changing the power structures or capitalist structures, activist structures of also kind of building a society that is not at our survival is not that related to our labor in that sense. And yeah, I had, I lost my train of thought. That's kind of what Amaro is here for then, to have this discussion. I think the labour discussion is a very big point we need to discuss. We don't have the time. I promise Amaro we finish now. But I think if Aileen comes quickly, because I think that's kind of closing it here. We also had actually at the first night, we had the whole discussion also, not only that hacking might not be enough, but that we also have to talk about regulation, so to say, and see how to actually have or take on these kinds of big corporations. But really and truly, I think we should kind of close it here. Thank you very much for this fantastic edition of Umbro. And I want just to leave our hosts quickly with some closing remarks. And I think we should give them all a big hand also to our panelists today. Thank you very much. And over to you, actually moderated the first night, so maybe quickly have a closing at the last session, and maybe Davide wants to close it off. Let's give them a hand. Thank you. Then I would just say, as I said at the end of my remarks the first night, I think say one quote, which is, the future is uncertain, but we will be back. So see you in two years. And thanks for coming and enjoying and engaging with everything. And the festival is you. The community is also you. So we are happy to have you around. And we'd like to have you around in the next edition and maybe in between as well. Thank you.