The question of human control is a key concern in autonomous military systems debates. Our research qualitatively and quantitatively investigates values and concerns of the general public, as they relate to autonomous military systems, with particular attention to the value of human control. Using participatory value evaluation (PVE), we consulted 1980 Australians about which values matter in relation to two specific technologies: an autonomous minesweeping submarine and an autonomous drone that can drop bombs. Based on value sensitive design, participants were (...) tasked to enhance the systems with design features that can realize values. A restriction (limited budget) in each design task forced participants to make trade-offs between design options and the values that these options realize. Our results suggest that the ‘general public’ has diverse and nuanced stances on the question of human control over autonomous military systems. A third of participants that is opposed to autonomous military systems when asked directly, selected different combinations of design features realizing varying degrees of human control. Several contextual factors, technology-specific concerns, and certain values seemed to explain these different choices. Our research shows that a focus on human control might overlook other important values that the general public is concerned about, such as system reliability, verifiability, and retrievability. (shrink)

The dynamic nature of design studio pedagogy has witnessed numerous paradigm shifts as tools and technologies associated with its professional practice have evolved. Generative artificial intelligence (particularly text-to-image) appears to be one such emerging tool with the potential to impact architecture pedagogy. Grounded in two semesters of jury observations and discussions across five design studios, this paper presents a debate addressing the advantages and disadvantages of employing emerging technology in the workflow of the architectural design studio. The debate is based (...) on the self-declared usage of generative AI across 41 instances among 221 public juries. The debate table was developed in the first semester and completed and refined in the second semester. The outcome presents an argument for the necessity of developing a framework for the utilization of generative AI in the design studio pedagogy. While AI image generation offers benefits such as design versatility and enhanced creative exploration, this research critically analyses its drawbacks, including potential bias, loss of attention to essential architectural qualities such as human scale, abstraction, and a tendency to produce designs that defy the reality of architectonics. The debate argues for a balanced approach, advocating for the harmonious coexistence of AI with traditional design methods. As generative AI becomes increasingly prevalent in architectural practice, its inclusion in the curriculum is essential. We propose that AI can empower students to confidently express their design ideas, but emphasize the need for a human-centric design approach. Ultimately, this debate extends its relevance beyond architecture to encompass various creative disciplines, highlighting the importance of navigating the transformative impact of AI on design education. (shrink)