Seda Gürses is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Multi-Actor Systems at TU Delft at the Faculty of Technology Policy and Management, and an affiliate at the COSIC Group at the Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), KU Leuven. Beyond her academic work, she also collaborated with artistic initiatives including Constant vzw, Bootlab, De-center, ESC in Brussels, Graz and Berlin.
Gürses' work provides us with handles to study computational infrastructures. The paper on *POTs (Protective Optimization Technologies)*[^pots] she co-wrote, for example, proposes forms of critical *optimization* practices. Such practices "aim at addressing risks and harms that cannot be captured from the fairness perspective and cannot be addressed without a cooperative service provider". The paper questions current "fairness" approaches, by questioning their limitations and creating space for community-inclusive ways to review them. Following Michael A. Jackson’s theory of requirements engineering, the paper also proposes to approach computational infrastructures as being far more than a technological system alone, thus shifting focus from the system itself to the economical, political and social context in which it operates.
By questioning how technologies could *optimize* their mode of operation in a truly just way, *POTs* provide "means for affected parties to address negative impacts of digital systems". The work departs from a thorough consideration of multiple forms of *harm* caused by computational infrastructures framed as *externalities*[^externalities]. Examples of such externalities include lack of privacy, discrimination, low wages and surveillance. How a *POT* could possible engage with them is furthermore illustrated through a range of activist, artistic and deployed examples of repurposed optimization technologies that "correct, shift or expose these harms".
We will introduce the work of Seda Gürses and dive with her into the following questions:
* What are computational infrastructures?
* What are elements that shape (or are shaped by) computational infrastructures?
* How can we understand the harm caused by computational infrastructures and the systems which deploy them?
* What interventions are possible to mitigate or eliminate this harm?
* What kind of limitations do you see in the realisation of these interventions?
<!-- They effect different externalities, operate on the basis of specific embedded values and define restrictions of what can be built on top of the infrastructure and what not. -->
<!-- Through the work of Seda we can understand computational infrastructures as complex entities. -->
<!-- The introduction to a seminar on*Programmable Infrastructures* points out how infrastructural work is becoming more and more mouldable, resulting in clouds and network providers that offer all sorts of flexible forms of*infrastructures-as-a-service*. And finally, the work around the unfolding of*The Institute for Technology in the Public Interest* create space for the articulation of what technologies for a “public interest” might be when “public interest” is always in-the-making. Links to these works are included at the bottom of this page. -->
<!-- Three of her works that particulary connect to the notion of*digital infrapunctures* are*POTs (Protective Optimization Technologies)*[^pots],*Programmable Infrastructures*[^progammableinfrastructures] and*The Institute for Technology in the Public Interest*[^titipi]. The work on*POTs* provides means for affected parties to address negative impacts of digital systems. It departs from a thorough consideration of multiple forms of harm caused by computational infrastructures. The work introduces a range of activistic, artistic and deployed examples of repurposed technologies that operate as (actual) optimization techniques, trying to correct, shift of expose these harms. -->
<!-- > PROGRAMMABLE INFRASTRUCTURES: Our concern is that the computational infrastructures are far more than a technological ecosystem alone. Like all infrastructure, they incentivize us to embed their values, and therewith much of their politics in the lower layers of the technology stack. Comparable to the cables and control equipment in electrical networks that determine what can and cannot be connected to it, computational infrastructures embed constraints on what can and cannot be built on top of it, as well as what is accessible to those needing to audit or validate its functionality.[^progammableinfrastructures] -->
<!-- POTS: We propose Protective Optimization Technologies (POTs). POTs, provide means for affected parties to address the negative impacts of systems in the environment, expanding avenues for political contestation. POTs intervene from outside the system, do not require service providers to cooperate, and can serve to correct, shift, or expose harms that systems impose on populations and their environments. We illustrate the potential and limitations of POTs in two case studies: countering road congestion caused by traffic-beating applications, and recalibrating credit scoring for loan applicants. -->
<!-- TITIPI: We want to create space for the articulation of what technologies for a “public interest” might be when “public interest” is always in-the-making. -->
[^progammableinfrastructures]: Seda Gürses, Roel Dobbe, Martha Poon "Seminar on Programmable Infrastructures" (2020). <https://www.tudelft.nl/tbm/programmable-infrastructures/>
[^titipi]: Miriyam Aouragh, Seda Gürses, Femke Snelting, Helen Pritchard "The Institute for Technology in the Public Interest" (accessed on 2020) <http://titipi.org/>
[^externalities]: *Externalities* is one of the concepts and phrases in the paper that are borrowed from software and requirements engineering, and from economics and social sciences.
