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.
The Hacker News post asks for recommendations of both photographers and artists creating work with generative code. The author is seeking inspiration and hoping to discover new artists working in these mediums, specifically highlighting an interest in those who push boundaries and create visually unique outputs. They are open to various forms of photography and generative art, from still images to animations and interactive experiences.
The Hacker News comments on this "Ask HN" post offer a variety of artist suggestions, ranging from well-known figures to lesser-known individuals. Several commenters recommend photographers like Saul Leiter, known for his street photography and use of color, and Vivian Maier, whose street photography was discovered posthumously. Others suggest generative artists like Refik Anadol, noted for his data sculptures and immersive installations, and Tyler Hobbs, known for his algorithmic art and explorations of randomness and control. Some commenters focus on specific niches, recommending artists working with AI, analog photography, or particular coding languages like Processing. A few commenters also share their own work or mention online platforms for discovering artists, like fxhash.
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.