Obviously he tried to lead us to the idea that "computer
is the core of all interactivity". He dismissed all other
forms of "interactive" performance by the idea of "listening,
thinking and speaking". He claimed that this is an "on-going
loop", and that is what makes an "interactive performance".
I believe that many have the same idea as I do: Jazz music, dances,
theatre performances, and stand-up comedies are of course interactive
performances. And his "listening, thinking and speaking"
is not the only idea to define "interactivity". I believe
conversations can be easily explained by the act of "ball-throwing".
We catch the ball from the speaker, and throw it back. But if
we play by his rules, the focus is of course on "programming".
That's the only difference between "ball-throwing" and
that " three-step procedure", the processing part.
He used about a page to explain why we have to focus on the "programming"
ability of computer and don't use it just as new medium for other
form of arts. In his idea, the "What you see is what you
get"; the immediacy is what makes a program "interactive".
But can computers make such differences as he claimed?
He stated that there is no interaction going on when playing with
the fridge, however, I feel playing with the computer is quite
the same. The only difference is the computers have "variables".
It "gathers" more information and makes responses accordingly.
The more information or category system a "processor"
has, the more "refined" responses it makes. But however
large memory a processor has to store all the information, the
way it responses is still fixed, as the repertoire is fixed in
a performance. Therefore the only part I see eye to eye with him
is the attraction of a machine being able to imitate human reactions,
and how it can change the way we express and communicate.