“The Kestrel Drone: Reimagining Bird’s Eye View With Biomimetic AI-drone for Bird Strike Prevention” by Oh

  • ©Jooyoung Oh

Conference:


Type:


Title:

    The Kestrel Drone: Reimagining Bird’s Eye View With Biomimetic AI-drone for Bird Strike Prevention

Session/Category Title:   Connecting With The Environment

Presenter(s)/Author(s):


Abstract:


    This work presents an interspecies-interpreting AI bird drone called the Kestrel Drone. The work aims to expand human-nonhuman and mainstream-nonmainstream technology boundaries. The work seeks new ways to co-evolve with other terrestrial species and live together in solidarity, asking new questions about sustainability through technology.

References:


    1. Enrico Ajanic, Mir Feroskhan, Stefano Mintchev, Flavio Noca, and Dario Floreano. 2020. Bioinspired wing and tail morphing extends drone flight capabilities. Science Robotics 5, 47 (2020), eabc2897.
    2. Roy Ascott. 2007. When the Jaguar lies down with the Lamb: speculations on the post-biological culture. Artnodes 1, 1 (Jan. 2007), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.7238/a.v0i1.677
    3. Miloš Balać, Amedeo R. Vetrella, and Kay W. Axhausen. 2018. Towards the integration of aerial transportation in urban settings. In 2018 TRB Annual Meeting Online. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 18–02015. https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000193150 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB 2018); Conference Location: Washington, DC, USA; Conference Date: January 7–11, 2018.
    4. Alexander Calder. 1970. Alexander Calder; Recent Gouaches, Early Mobiles.
    5. Javaan Chahl. 2020. Learning from nature: a new flapping drone can take off, hover and swoop like a bird. Retrieved January 8, 2023 from https://theconversation.com/learning-from-nature-a-new-flapping-drone-can-take-off-hover-and-swoop-like-a-bird-143343.
    6. Peter Dauvergne. 2020. AI in the Wild: Sustainability in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 53–56 pages.
    7. Gerrit Adriaan Folkertsma, Wessel Straatman, Nico Nijenhuis, Cornelis Henricus Venner, and Stefano Stramigioli. 2017. Robird: a robotic bird of prey. IEEE robotics & automation magazine 24, 3 (2017), 22–29.
    8. Donna Jeanne Haraway. 2003. The companion species manifesto: Dogs, people, and significant otherness. Vol. 1. Prickly Paradigm Press Chicago, Chicago, IL. 6–9 pages.
    9. Ross Bowen Harley and Gillian Maree Fuller. 2005. Aviopolis: A book about airports. Black Dog Publishing, Chicago, IL.
    10. Karl Gunnar Pontus Hulten and Jean Tinguely. 1975. Méta. Thames and Hudson, London.
    11. Hervé Jactel, Eckehard Brockerhoff, and Peter Duelli. 2005. A test of the biodiversity-stability theory: meta-analysis of tree species diversity effects on insect pest infestations, and re-examination of responsible factors. Forest diversity and function: temperate and boreal systems 176 (2005), 235–262.
    12. Hyun-Kyu Jang, Jong-Moon Park, Sohail Ahmed, Seong-Hoon Seok, Ho-Su Kim, and Seong-Chan Yeon. 2019. Fracture analysis of wild birds in South Korea. Journal of Veterinary Clinics 36, 4 (2019), 196–199.
    13. Theo Jansen. 2018. Legs. Technology| Architecture+ Design 2, 1 (2018), 15–16.
    14. Wooyuel Kim, Sung-hyun Kim, Jongchul Park, Sungeun Jung, and Gi-chang Bing. 2019. A Ten-Year (’08~’17) Study on the Distribution of the Common Kestrel. MUNHWAJAE Korean Journal of Cultural Heritage Studies 52, 1 (2019), 82–89.
    15. Daniel Klem, Christopher J Farmer, Nicole Delacretaz, Yigal Gelb, and Peter G Saenger. 2009. Architectural and landscape risk factors associated with bird–glass collisions in an urban environment. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121, 1 (2009), 126–134.
    16. Nathan S Lachenmyer and Sadiya Akasha. 2022. An Aquarium of Machines: A Physically Realized Artificial Life Simulation. Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques 5, 4 (2022), 1–11.
    17. Bruno Latour. 2014. How better to register the agency of things.
    18. Tim Lomas. 2022. Stranger than we can imagine: the possibility and potential significance of non-human forms of consciousness and wellbeing. The Journal of Positive Psychology 0, 0 (2022), 1–20.
    19. Markus Mannheim. 2021. Wing resumes drone deliveries in Canberra after raven attacks. ABC. Retrieved January 8, 2023 from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-11/wing-resumes-drone-deliveries-after-raven-attacks/100689690.
    20. Arthur I Miller. 2019. The artist in the machine: The world of AI-powered creativity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 286–289 pages.
    21. Gary Nunn. 2021. ‘They’re territorial’: can bird and drones coexist? The Guardian. Retrieved January 8, 2023 from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/01/theyre-territorial-can-birds-and-drones-coexist.
    22. Andrea Owe and Seth D Baum. 2021. The ethics of sustainability for artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on AI for people: towards sustainable AI (CAIP 2021b). EAI, Bologna, Italy, 1–17.
    23. Phenotypica. 2018. Agonism/Antagonism. https://phenotypica.org/projects/agonism_antagonism/index.html.
    24. Natalia Sánchez Querubín and Sabine Niederer. 2022. Climate futures. Convergence 0, 0 (2022), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565221135715
    25. Victor Schmidt, Alexandra Luccioni, S Karthik Mukkavilli, Narmada Balasooriya, Kris Sankaran, Jennifer Chayes, and Yoshua Bengio. 2019. Visualizing the consequences of climate change using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. CoRR abs/1905.03709 (2019), 1–7.
    26. Kenneth J Shapiro. 1990. Animal rights versus humanism: The charge of speciesism. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 30, 2 (1990), 9–37.
    27. Christa Sommerer and Laurent Mignonneau. 1999. Art as a living system: interactive computer artworks. Leonardo 32, 3 (1999), 165–173.
    28. Isabelle Su, Neosha Narayanan, Marcos A Logrono, Kai Guo, Ally Bisshop, Roland Mühlethaler, Tomás Saraceno, and Markus J Buehler. 2021. In situ three-dimensional spider web construction and mechanics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 33 (2021), e2101296118.
    29. John P Swaddle, Dana L Moseley, Mark K Hinders, and Elizabeth P. Smith. 2016. A sonic net excludes birds from an airfield: implications for reducing bird strike and crop losses. Ecological Applications 26, 2 (2016), 339–345.
    30.Devis Tuia, Benjamin Kellenberger, Sara Beery, Blair R Costelloe, Silvia Zuffi, Benjamin Risse, Alexander Mathis, Mackenzie W Mathis, Frank van Langevelde, Tilo Burghardt, et al. 2022. Perspectives in machine learning for wildlife conservation. Nature communications 13, 1 (2022), 792.
    31. Julian FV Vincent, Olga A Bogatyreva, Nikolaj R Bogatyrev, Adrian Bowyer, and Anja-Karina Pahl. 2006. Biomimetics: its practice and theory. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 3, 9 (2006), 471–482.
    32. W Grey Walter. 1951. A machine that learns. Scientific American 185, 2 (1951), 60–64.
    33. P. Weibel. 2023. BioMedia: The Age of Media with Life-like Behavior. Spector Books, Dreßen. https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=pCctzwEACAAJ
    34. Ludwig Wittgenstein. 2010. Philosophical investigations. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
    35. Joanna Zylinska. 2020. AI art: machine visions and warped dreams. Open Humanities Press, London. 41–46 pages.

ACM Digital Library Publication:


Art Paper/Presentation Type: