Belgian artist Dries Depoorter created "The Flemish Scrollers," an art project using AI to detect and publicly shame Belgian politicians caught using their phones during parliamentary livestreams. The project automatically clips videos of these instances and posts them to a Twitter bot account, tagging the politicians involved. Depoorter aims to highlight politicians' potential inattentiveness during official proceedings.
Belgian artist Dries Depoorter has developed and deployed a sophisticated, automated system designed to identify and publicly highlight instances of Flemish politicians using their mobile phones during legislative sessions broadcast via livestream. This project, titled "The Flemish Scrollers," utilizes computer vision technology to meticulously analyze publicly accessible video feeds of parliamentary proceedings. The system is engineered to detect the characteristic shapes and movements associated with smartphone usage, such as the distinctive rectangular form of a phone held in a hand and the subtle yet discernible gestures involved in scrolling or tapping on a screen. Upon successful identification of such behavior, the system automatically generates a short video clip capturing the politician in the act of phone use. This clip is then promptly posted to a dedicated Twitter account specifically created for the project, thereby bringing the politician's in-session phone activity to the immediate attention of a wider audience. The system's aim is not simply to document these moments but to foster greater transparency and accountability regarding politicians' attention levels and engagement during official governmental proceedings. By making these instances of potential distraction readily accessible to the public, the project encourages scrutiny and discussion regarding appropriate conduct within the legislative chamber. The underlying technology employed represents a novel application of artificial intelligence and image recognition, demonstrating the potential for automated systems to monitor and analyze human behavior in public settings.
Summary of Comments ( 105 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43278473
HN commenters largely criticized the project for being creepy and invasive, raising privacy concerns about publicly shaming politicians for normal behavior. Some questioned the legality and ethics of facial recognition used in this manner, particularly without consent. Several pointed out the potential for misuse and the chilling effect on free speech. A few commenters found the project amusing or a clever use of technology, but these were in the minority. The practicality and effectiveness of the project were also questioned, with some suggesting politicians could easily circumvent it. There was a brief discussion about the difference between privacy expectations in public vs. private settings, but the overall sentiment was strongly against the project.
The Hacker News comments section for the post "Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams" (regarding the project "The Flemish Scrollers") contains a robust discussion with a variety of perspectives on the project's implications.
Several commenters express concerns about privacy and surveillance. They question the ethics of publicly shaming politicians for using their phones, arguing that it's a form of public shaming and doesn't necessarily indicate wrongdoing. Some highlight the potential for misuse of this technology and the slippery slope towards increased surveillance of individuals. The idea that this could normalize such tracking and lead to its application to everyday citizens is a recurring worry. Some also point out the potential for false positives and the lack of context surrounding phone usage. A politician might be responding to an urgent matter or using their phone for work-related tasks, and the automatic tagging system doesn't differentiate between these scenarios.
Others see the project as a valuable tool for transparency and accountability. They argue that it holds politicians accountable for their attention during public sessions and allows the public to see how engaged their representatives are. Some suggest that it could discourage distractions and encourage politicians to be more present during important discussions. The sentiment that the public has a right to know what their elected officials are doing is prevalent in these comments.
A few commenters discuss the technical aspects of the project, including the use of facial recognition and AI. They delve into the accuracy of the system and the potential for biases in the algorithms. Some express interest in the technical implementation details and the challenges involved in identifying individuals and tracking their phone usage in real-time.
There's also a discussion about the broader implications of this technology beyond just politicians. Some commenters speculate about its potential use in other contexts, such as monitoring student attention in classrooms or employee engagement in meetings. The ethical implications of such applications are debated, with some arguing that it could be a useful tool while others express concern about the potential for abuse.
Finally, a handful of comments offer alternative perspectives or humorous takes on the situation. Some suggest that the project is more of an art piece or social commentary than a practical tool. Others joke about the potential reactions of politicians to being caught using their phones.
Overall, the comments section reveals a complex and nuanced discussion about the project's ethical, technical, and societal implications. There is a clear divide between those who see it as a positive step towards transparency and accountability and those who view it as a potentially invasive form of surveillance. The discussion highlights the important questions surrounding the use of AI and facial recognition technology in public spaces and the balance between privacy and public access to information.