A transcript of Episode 217 of UX Podcast. Christopher Noessel talks to James and Per about Randomness. A broad philosophical topic with a rich history and some interesting applications for creativity and design.
This transcript has been machine generated.
Transcript
Per Axbom
Hello, and thank you for listening. We’ve been creating UX podcast for now over eight years. For most of that time the podcast has been produced and run without any external financial support.
James Royal-Lawson
We decided a few years ago to stop accepting regular sponsorship, apart from event sponsorships in order to keep the podcast independent and free from editorial pressure that can come with sponsorship.
Per Axbom
So if you find UX Podcast useful, perhaps even valuable, then we’d love you to be part of making sure UX podcast continues to create fresh, relevant content that helps you grow as a designer. Please visit UXpodcast.com/support and give as little or as much as you can.
Computer voice
UX podcast episode 217.
James Royal-Lawson
Hello, everybody. Welcome to UX podcast coming to you from Stockholm, Sweden. We are your hosts James Royal-Lawson,
Per Axbom
and Per Axbom.
James Royal-Lawson
With listeners in 188 countries from Kuwait to Brunei,
Per Axbom
In today’s show we pick up on a topic that Chris Noessel raised on the show three years ago, randomness seemingly a broad philosophical philosophical topic, it can have some pretty interesting applications in the realms of design and creativity, helping us as humans overcome certain weaknesses.
James Royal-Lawson
So when we had the chance to sit down with Chris, once again, this time at From Business to Buttons here in Stockholm, we let him truly expand on the topic, his thoughts and conclusions. We move from tarrot reading through something called haruspication to constrained writing all the way to generative design and the definition of value. So, sit back and enjoy some wonderful storytelling by Chris Noessel.
Welcome back for the fifth time. Chris, Noessel.
You’ve been? You’ve been on episode… Okay, I’m gonna go through them quickly. Episode 25
Make It So.
Per Axbom
That’s early.
James Royal-Lawson
it’s a really only one. Episode 86 the Star Wars.. Re-designing Star Wars. 121 which is agentive technology. Agentive agentive I know we differ on our pronouncation there.
Per Axbom
Agentive.
Christopher Noessel
Agentive, yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
And then creativity we did together with Denise Jacobs. So now for number five. And before I think we’re gonna we’re gonna follow up on something we mentioned back in episode 121. Where…
Per Axbom
Because people have been waiting for it.
James Royal-Lawson
They have. Three years.
Per Axbom
Three years.
James Royal-Lawson
The letters have been coming in weekly since March 2016. We have to ask you about the impact of randomness. This is one that came up as a very quick side mention wasn’t even a side topic during that interview. I think it’s one of your favourite subjects. But I I’m I think it’s gonna be really fun because I don’t really know what this is going to go into
Per Axbom
me neither
James Royal-Lawson
or talk about
Christopher Noessel
[Laughter] Awesome.
James Royal-Lawson
I’m sure it’s gonna be interesting. So randomness, Chris
Christopher Noessel
Randomness. I it goes back to a story. So I am a sceptical guy. And I tend to take a sceptical view towards a lot of things. I need to see it. This goes back to way when I was younger. When I was I’m doing the mental…[mumble] 19 years old. A group of friends of mine on a lark decided to go to a tarot no palmist. Palmist. Who reads palms
James Royal-Lawson
Oh right, yeah.
Christopher Noessel
And I was like guys, this is just going to bilk us out of money. We shouldn’t. But the spirit of togetherness, I went to the panellist. And everyone had their palm read. And I remember, she held my palm at the table. And she was like, Oh, this is your lifeline. This is your love line. Looks like you’re gonna have two kids at the time. I was like, Yeah, whatever. Turns out she was right. I finished it out. I kept my sceptical brain I said that was probably just cold reading. She was giving generalities with occasional specifics, when my eyes lit up or something like that. It’s like it’s a complex psychological trick.
Fast forward five years, and I wind up hanging out with a good friend of mine in Seattle. And he was getting into victory. And I recall his I was like, okay, Brian told me about this stuff. Still my sceptical head. And he began saying, Oh, well, if you put things on this side of a heavy object on this side of your room, will it’ll affect your love life. And if you put chimes over here, it’ll affect your health. And my brain, went back three years and connected the promised to this rendition of French Way through Brian. It’s like, those two things are the same. And I could not figure out for eight years why they were the same.
That that connection, just stayed in the back of my head until I randomly came across semiotics. I’d never studied it. But I fell into it as just and there wasn’t any like formal study. It was understanding comics, Scott McCloud that I mentioned semiotics, I was like, I love Scott McCloud. So I should look up something up, and wound up studying it nice. And suddenly it clicked for me. And this is right before I went to grad school, I was like, Oh, I get it. And it let me not drop the scepticism I still don’t, I don’t give any power to the notion that there is a mystical force between behind divination techniques like tarot or even feng sui , which is not quite devinition, or any of the other techniques that sort of invoke mystical powers.
But there is a symbiotic used to the systems that are all quite similar, like, skip the storey part and jump to what the pattern is. The pattern is that there are a whole bunch of systems started to be so abstract, but that assign meanings to tokens. This card means death, this card means health. This line means children, this side of your room means fire. Then there is some randomness involved in the case of palmistry it’s just biology.
And the case of Tarot it’s shuffling those cards in rune reading it shaking a bag full of stones. And then those tokens with those meetings attached are drawn from that random and placed inside of some grammar. So the grammar is the syntax and they call them spreads in tarot. Well, this card that you’ve drawn, that has the evil tower on it is in your present. Oh, that means one thing had I drawn it a moment later and it goes into your past. Well, that means another.
In the case of runes, they also have sort of spreads. And lots of inventory systems. My favourite sort of Ancient One. My favourite one is her haruspication, crazy old word, but it means for like liver divination, when these to kill calves, and pull their livers out. And if you have any listeners in or near Piacenza, Italy, they can go to a museum where you can find the original Etruscan liver divination. And so what they did is they had the this little stone shows a map of the liver, and each sort of area around the side in the middle has a little geography that has certain meanings. And then they would look in the living for perturbations, a black spot meant this so you would combine the meaning of that black spot with geography of where in the liver to happen. And they would tell you Oh, we need to shore up our military on the northern border, stuff like that.
But all of those share that that that same deep pattern, which is tokens that are randomised, and read inside of a fixed grammar for new meaning. That’s it. But I was like, Ah, thank you semiotics, you have now answered this eight year old question that I had. And I sat with it and began to push it through more and more divination systems. And I was like, Oh, this is true for a lot of things.
Then I began to ran into the pattern in two other places that were important to me. The first was entertainment. Mad Libs are literally a fixed grammar. Then you hide that grammar from the people in the room. And you ask them for prompts and they don’t know where that’s going. And the randomization comes from just word association. Give me a girl’s name. Give me a time of year. And then of course that is applied into the sentence. Now that’s not divination. But as I began to collect more and more those examples, they wound up being just for entertainment value.
Lots of kids books, like the flip books, where you turn one third of the page, my son really enjoys his dinosaur one. And not only are the drawings constructed such the giant dinosaur always looks cohesive, but they also break up the names. So you might get a Tera, rexa raptor. One tri, cera, ortho dicks. Sorry. And that was poor choice of remnant rant.
But it’s just pure entertainment, right, which is like, Oh, this is really funny. lots of examples. The one of the cooler ones that I found was there is a, there’s a musical dice game that is ascribed to Mozart. And the idea is that you roll these dice, and you consult a set of tables that are snippets of music to be put together and a piano. And they create one of like, so depending on the roll of the dice, the system creates one of 17 million specific type of musical piece that can be generated, in fact, their online version of it today.
So it was the second giant category where this exact same sort of pattern played out, just for being somebody who likes to think about stuff that was a cool connexion. But then I began to find it in another category that meant new newer things to me. And that was design. So a colleague of mine in grad school had studied at Rome, and one of his professors taught something called symbiosis of design.
And the way it worked is he would take something like a glass, and he would have his students write it out as a node graph. So for each part of the object, you would write what its function was. And then and that would be the node. And then you would write a wine where it was physically connected to the next part, and what that function was. So you wind up with a node graph that described the object, you would put the object away, and then you’d begin to manipulate the node graph, oh, I have a stem, which lifts the liquid in my glass for like a wine glass off of the table and gives my hand a place to rest and a mechanism for warming the liquid in the glass. Right? That might be part of my note graph.
Well, you can duplicate, you can fork, you can rearrange that node graph, and then you try and take that back into the real world. Well, what does it mean, if you separate out a place for your hand to go for warming and a function for lifting the class off the ground? Well, you might say, Okay, well, let’s lift the glass off the ground, with a stem on the left and have a big flat panel that’s actually hand size, so that the glass is something that you rest your hand vertically, against, I’m this is not a good design. But that’s kind of the purpose of this is that
Per Axbom
it was like the Madlib really
Christopher Noessel
Exactly like Madlib. It’s a manipulation of these signs, and then re read back in the world. In this case, the syntax is the utility of an object, but it’s still a syntax. And the nice thing about the design systems are that divination systems are meant to be interpreted, entertainment systems are meant to be kind of laughed at, or like the surprise is sort of the joy of it. But in both cases, you’re meant to simply accept the output of this meaning machine as fixed.
But in a design system, it’s always you interpret it and then build on it. So sure, the design a semiosis tool might produce 25 really ridiculous glasses. But one of those may pique your interest as a designer, and you say, I’m going to build on that I’m going to build this really cool new glass. It’s probably more understandable to us. And I should have used a chair example. Cuz there’s such a history of in design of different chair designs,
James Royal-Lawson
manipulating the what is a chair?
Christopher Noessel
Yeah,
James Royal-Lawson
it can be anything from just a lump of bag or something on the floor, to something on a long pole. Yeah, I’m going off on all the different variations, glasses. Yeah, yeah.
Christopher Noessel
So all these three systems bear that same sense of that deep pattern. They’re just simply use for different purposes. And I’m super delighted to have found a way to make that sort of nerd interest debris utility because I’m a designer. And I’m a writer, in addition to other things, and I found the oulipo Are you guys familiar with this
James Royal-Lawson
lipo
Christopher Noessel
Oulipo spelled O U L I P O. And it is a portmanteau of several French words, and I’m going to murder the French. But this is the “Ouvroir de Littérature Potentielle”, the genre of potential literature, it was a genre that was invented, middle of the 20th century, by some French writers who created elaborate mechanisms for generating new writing prompts, but let me share with you just a couple of like the techniques that they would use in ouleapian in writing.
So one of them is called the n plus seven engine in the n plus seven engine, you would write a paragraph of text, or even a small story, then you would get a dictionary, and the smaller the dictionary, the better this works. But then you would go through your story and you would find the first noun, you would look up the noun the dictionary and then look seven entries below it and replace the dictionary entry with the thing that you wrote
Per Axbom
Oh nice. I love it.
Christopher Noessel
And you would complete that for the entire story it would weirdly change the meaning of the story. First, you wrote about a bird go from a bird to a boy, I had a boy in a cage who sang beautifully, suddenly a weird new, story, right, that that you might not have thought about before. But the readers to simply take it as is as fixed. And it’s beautiful, creates beautiful sort of new writings that the author kind of intended, but not really. Another one is a generation technique for character development. By which if you know a person’s name, you can break it down to its atomic elements, deliberately misinterpret them and then create a back story or a story around it. So give me a celebrity. And I’ll demonstrate
Tom Hanks. So that’s his name, breaking it down to atomic elements. Tom, Han and kiss will work with that. Tom is also a cat. So let’s imagine a cat. Han we can imagine Han Solo. Oh, Peter Mayhew just died earlier today. Okay, so let’s not go there. Let’s go han as hand. Imagine a cat, a cat that was actually born with human hands. And then kiss. Who falls in love with it should be a palmist cat he was born with hands has a love affair with a palmist that can never be realised. Just given Tom’s name. We’ve now built up the story from these atomic elements. And they would often do that, like they would come up with a name and then write a story around that using this sort of engine.
They collected in a in an like a newsletter format, maybe three, four, dozens of these techniques, and they are fascinating. And they get you as a writer, they really get you to places that you couldn’t have gotten like I would have never been able to construct a story about a cat born with hands in love with a palmist before coming in this room and your giving me Tom Hanks. It opens potentials in ways that our brains aren’t good at. We’re really good at repeating known patterns. But this breaks up into new amazing possibilities.
Per Axbom
Tom Hanks
James Royal-Lawson
what we did that was we used we salted the the – in encryption methods and you would he would you salt the encryption by adding some random thing like Tom Hanks, you’d add that into it and then it create something that wouldn’t have been possible to create in the first place.
Christopher Noessel
Exactly. Exactly, exactly. And so being a writer, I now have tools when I feel I’m getting stuck on just getting into fiction writing I self published my first piece last year but um, when it gets stuck, I now have a tonne of new techniques to open my brain to new possibilities and then select one and then build on it and move on. super happy. Additionally, my work in AI in an IBM has now opened me to the possibility that the all previous meaning machines are bound by physical or cognitive limits. In the case of tarot, you can’t shuffle a deck of 500 cards. So manipuability is..
James Royal-Lawson
You’re a cat with four hands,
Christopher Noessel
[Laughter] Exactly! or an octopus.
All right, I’m not gonna write that short storey live in on the podcast.
But right there’s there’s a manipulate ability requirement to divination system that has physical tokens, and that’s a constraint. For language the humans typically have between 10 and 40,000 word vocabularies, and that’s a constraint on the types of system that we both can sort of give you computers notably are free of those constraints and have access to very complex algorithms. Um, so the the sort of last manifestation of this pattern that I’m looking for and kind of processing right now in the background, a much with some other stuff is that big patterns of creativity machines, that AI is now going to open the door for us to see and experience new kinds of art that we’ve never had before.
Per Axbom
That’s so interesting. So I was thinking, as he was saying this, that, so this seems to be one of those abilities that humans have that machines don’t. But as you were breaking it down, I realised, well, this is something that we can provide the machines, so they become much better than us at it.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah, don’t we call this generative design isn’t a phrase for for this kind of thing where it is,
Christopher Noessel
Yeah. Autodesk has general design, and it’s essentially computerising. This design semiosis from that realm Professor whose name I can’t remember sorry, Andres van Onck, who teaches at the ISAI in Rome. So I want to give him credit where credit is due. But the Yes, generative design has quite literally computerised those notions. And it’ll say, Oh, you give it you describe the system like the chair.
And there’s in the Autodesk headquarters in San Francisco, they actually have this beautiful chair, where they just said, what we want to do is support a weight in the shape at this height off the ground. And here, the materials and the properties of those materials, and evolve to the most efficient shape. And eventually, it cranks for a long time. evolutionarily, just trying different things and seeing which of these new permutations meets that gold best. This one is closer. So I’ll now, generate off that branch, so on and so forth, until you get to this weird, beautiful chair. It is exactly that the difference.
And I think the thing that Per you are picking up on is that, especially for like the meaning machines of language require up until now and maybe in the near future, a human to make those connections being able to turn Tom Hanks into that storey is not something I would expect a computer to be able to do well yet. In my writing and thinking about this I call that the Pareidolia bridge, Pareidolia is the human ability to find meaning and noise. And so when these machines produce noisy output, we as meaning makers, tend to collapse that into something that’s constructive or or that we can use and ignore the rest. And that is the thing that I don’t think computers are great at.
Set, the generative design is kind of counterexample.
James Royal-Lawson
So are we we heading for future world, rather than being designers were actually evaluators.
Christopher Noessel
Yeah. I, I yes.
And and I don’t mean to be flippant about that. But somebody was asking on stage earlier today, they asked me like, how will our world changed because of agentitive technologies. And I do believe that the that we work with in pattern languages, whether they’re explicit or not, and I don’t mean to be glib about throwing that reference out there. Christopher Alexander created this Pattern Language is for architecture right back in the 70s. And I think they opened up everyone’s minds and every creative field. And that’s kind of how we work notions of visual hierarchy hierarchy, notions of affordences, they’re not rules, but they’re guidelines that fit together based on the context. And I think those can be computerised leaving us to be the the evaluators to say this one is good way back when I was an undergraduate.
Can’t believe it, I haven’t thought about the story in years. I wrote… I’m such a nerd. I wrote it as a hobby. I had scanned all these old engraving art images into a computer. And then I wrote this algorithm that just scaled them and coloured them and combine them sort of randomly on screen, and I would let that thing just sit and play to my left, as I was working on the computer in front of me. And then when something caught my eye, literally out of the corner of my eye, I could press the spacebar and it would record that screenshot. And I would use that as like a basis for a potential poster in one of my classes. Yeah. Um, so I think thank goodness, the statute of limitations on my grades have since passed, because I was kind of cheating. Right? It wasn’t like a muse that was inspiring to us. But right, it was that randomness that I was like, Oh, hey, that, that’s amazing. Let’s do that. Let’s use that. But we are evaluators. And that’s what I was doing is I was letting my.
James Royal-Lawson
Well you were evaluating by pressing the space bar
Christopher Noessel
exactly
James Royal-Lawson
Someone else is designing. You would just say, Yeah Like that one, that one we’re gonna do something with we can run with that.
Christopher Noessel
an evaluator for direction, because would then build on. Well, I don’t want the the engraving the rabbit there. I want to I want to replace that with a duck. And then, you know, it was material to build on. And so yes, we’re evaluators. But I also think we can be extenders as well.
Per Axbom
Example I’m thinking about as I saw the other day, and it hasn’t been verified that it’s true. But it seems that a company’s invented an algorithm for actually creating photos of models for photo shoots. So the clothes aren’t real, the models and real, the face doesn’t exist, but they look perfect.
James Royal-Lawson
Perfect.
Per Axbom
Well, exactly. Based on the
James Royal-Lawson
the prejudices of..
Per Axbom
Whatever requirements are the magazines have. And so that so that when you say evaluators, that is exactly it, these designs will be made for us, somebody has to evaluate what is perfect, what is good. And we can’t be far off with Web Designs with all types of design, we just can stop doing it. And we just press the spacebar, get all these images and have to evaluate Is that good enough? feedback? No, it’s not good enough. tweak this. So building on it.
Christopher Noessel
Yeah. it’ll it’ll generate some sort of base structure that we then say, Okay, I see what you did there. But
James Royal-Lawson
yeah, what what actually you also learn from your evaluation, what kind of things generally work for particular problems, and then it will be able to be more efficient at producing example work.
Per Axbom
And this makes me think of all the artists and painters and sculptors who actually don’t sculpt themselves because they have a team of people doing it for them. They are evaluators, even though they are called to the artists.
Christopher Noessel
That’s really interesting. Yeah. That’s a great historical model. Right, that we, we used to respect that,
James Royal-Lawson
That the great masters would would have a whole whole team of.. You don’t call them students do you? apprentices? Yeah.
Christopher Noessel
But but we still respect that. And even the history books, my art history, book back in undergraduate said that this is the artists
Per Axbom
Yeah, it’s like the Nobel Prize winners even. I mean, they have a team of people behind them.
Christopher Noessel
Yeah. But we just like our brains work that we need one name to attached to that rather than the team. And I think certainly nowadays, we’re like, oh, an artist can only be one person. But no, we’re moving to a space where Yes, it will be multiple agents, but not all of them will be human.
Per Axbom
Exactly.
Christopher Noessel
Now, what I’m really fascinated about is to apply the the McLuhan notion that, you know, we create our tools in there after they create us, what happens when what happens to our sense of aesthetics, when computers are providing the base, and we’re extending them? A study that has found that people lay people tend to evaluate art based on how much effort they think and it took, as well as the aesthetics. But now with computation, like we can create the deep dream crazy stuff that would take a human years to produce maybe. So now we can dismiss those things as that Well, that was clearly computer generated. So it’s not worth anything. How does it How does this set exchange? What changed about what we think we value? I don’t have the answers, but I’m fascinated to know.
James Royal-Lawson
So they’ll be they’ve been evolutionary impact over time, because certain brain processes won’t be as required. So they will be developed in the same way and something else will be enhanced because of the evaluations we’re doing instead. That will have all kinds of interesting implications.
Christopher Noessel
Like I know, we do a lot of speculative design, but like a speculative aesthetics. Yeah, be a fascinating way to like, Look, and try and predict which way that computer generated art will push our sense of what art is, and even what’s valuable.
Per Axbom
I am so much looking forward to interviewing you again and to hear and see where we’ll be at. This is amazing. Thanks again for joining us, Chris.
Christopher Noessel
Thank you for letting me nerd out.
James Royal-Lawson
Listening back to that interview, again. I really do realise why we’ve had Chris, as a guest on the show. Five times. Now, over seven years.
Per Axbom
He is a special kind of Geek and I use that word with the most utmost of love. I mean,
James Royal-Lawson
He’s a nerd, he’s a geek,
Per Axbom
his attention to detail that he wants to give credit where credit is due all the time. He knows stuff that I mean, most people have never ever explored. I had never never heard of haruspication before.
And I can’t even say it.
Oulipo. Musikalisches Würfelspiel, which I looked up as what the German
James Royal-Lawson
Oh the dice, generating thing.
Per Axbom
Yeah, exactly. So yeah, I just, um, it’s and he any ties it all together. Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah.
James Royal-Lawson
Yeah. So Chris is not just a wonderful storyteller. And his ability to recall some of these storeys is admirable, but he also manages to inspire you or to provoke your mind into continuing the thinking. Yeah, so the story isn’t just kind of consumption and that’s the end of it. His storytelling, at least when we’ve talked to him, opens your mind up. And I that’s exactly what for me what this interview did.
Per Axbom
And if you as a designer, I mean, your job is sort of to see patterns, then I mean, I’m amazed by how he can see something. And then recall that yeah, that is related in some sort of way, in this know, graph way to something I saw that was completely different, three years ago, or 19 years ago. Yeah. And he’s been able to tie all this together across the years. And finally come to a conclusion about how it all works, and how it all builds upon each other, which is just mind blowing. I had to skip back a couple of times when listening to that interview, and I realised that, wow, it all fits. It’s, it’s amazing.
James Royal-Lawson
So I mean, one thing I think we can recommend there is, is go back and listen to the show, again, yeah. I mean, maybe even change your context. So if you if you listen to this while jogging, or working out or doing something that you would normally do, while listening to this podcast, try doing it in another environment, maybe with like, I know, you sat down, did a mind map, I sat down took some notes, because there’s a lot of things here that you know, you can you can spin, spin on, you can actually research, live more about and learn some more about and, and this this whole, fascinating topics to dive into here that he mentioned.
Per Axbom
Yeah. And I love actually how I mean, he’s so excited about AI and what AI can do for us. Often on the show, we can become quite dystopian, we’re not talking about a I like in Episode 215, when talking with Daryl, although we try to avoid being too dystopian there as well. But I mean, Chris is generally excited about if we can do this properly, the machines can help us make and create fantastic things. And we will become the evaluators, as we were talking me about, of these things that the machines are creating, that will be our new job.
James Royal-Lawson
Well, that was my I put that suggestion to him, about evaluation and interest added that he thinks will be extenders as well. So evaluators and extenders and and I’ve been reflecting today about how well this this the other role to connecting it back to what we mentioned earlier in the interview about the salting the need to, to add, add a little something to the machines to allow them to, to be creative, that it is going to be our job as well as evaluating and extending, then we’re going to need to feed, we’re going to need to provide things such as qualitative data. And that, just a bit like you mentioned, the guesses straight into the the issues we talked about with Darryl about bias and statistics, because we’re going to put bias data into these systems, because the needed but then it’s going to feed it that’s going to feed into its results. And we’re going to use our bias to evaluate and our bias to extend and
Per Axbom
and the AI is going to learn what one designer likes and what another designer likes. And they’ll design their produce more of what seems to appeal to a certain person as well. So it’s even by just deciding and extending your feeding back into the system, because it’s learning as we go along. It’s becoming very complex, though. and by extension that made me think of why does it stop with us as designers? I mean, if we have mapped up a website’s components in two different nodes, why don’t we allow the users themselves of the systems to actually just redesign the website to suit their whatever they like, but redesign itself? Yeah, they can just click a button as well. They click the spacebar. Here’s a new design. Here’s a new design, which ones you like, I’ll go with this one.
James Royal-Lawson
Well, yeah, I mean, I guess it’s already in place at some. So you could use the data to say, well, the user went that route last time. And then they back to when this route. So we’ll just try this route the next time. So it’s kind of like automated A B testing, which I know some tools use. And it’s it’s perilous in many ways,
Per Axbom
ooh now. Yeah, and then now we’re getting into Of course, as we always delve into, get into ethics, then because should the system do this without the person knowing, thus making friction less, and then making decisions without understanding the consequences. So there’s so much going on. And when we automate,
James Royal-Lawson
Exactly, automate without, I mean, we do so much without understanding the consequences. And machines can do it faster.
Now, let’s not…
Per Axbom
There’s also the risk here, I mean, if we if we are evaluating all the time, and of course, we have preferences as individuals, so it all comes down to if we can make exciting new creative stuff, how much how attuned are we to use your experience and understanding users, we need to factor that in as well into this fantastic creation where we are getting the signs by just by pressing a button.
James Royal-Lawson
I’m so glad that you didn’t finish on a dystopian note then this is a this is a fantastic future. And we don’t and we will we will find a good way of solving all these things.
Per Axbom
We will.
James Royal-Lawson
Thanks to chris please subscribe to the show if you don’t already. Our entire collection of episodes is available on Spotify and on the website and hopefully soon it will be available via the regular feed as well. Won’t it Per?
Per Axbom
It should be
James Royal-Lawson
Just need you to press some buttons for me.
Per Axbom
Oh and a suggestion on what to listen to next. As per usual, why not give Episode 151 Liminal thinking with Dave grey a listen. Remember to keep moving.
James Royal-Lawson
See you on the other side.
How do you know how heavy a chilli pepper is?
Per Axbom
I don’t know how do you know how heavy a chilli pepper is?
James Royal-Lawson
Give it away. Give it away. Give it away now. That joke is just so 90s
[Music]
This is a transcript of a conversation between James Royal-Lawson, Per Axbom, and Christopher Noessel originally recorded in May 2019 and published as Episode 217 of UX Podcast.
This transcript has been machine generated.