It is really interesting to think about how computers see completely differenly than how humans do. Like, I habe found it always so interesting that what seems so easy to say or see for a human the computer just work differently and I have to basically think as if I was a computer too. As I was reading, I realised how much more complex a human mind is by default, such as having spatial awareness, memory or even reasoning, while a computer is only able to possess some of these qualities if it was programmed to do so. As the author highlights, it is so interesting to think about that computers need to have context, need to have something that is clearly distinguishable between for example objects and humans, because fundamentally they see both as the same if it is not specified, while humans just know basically, that a sofa and a person are not the same.
The author mentioned a few ways that it could be made easier for a computer to distinguish, track or see what we are interested in, such as using infrared, brightness or frame differencing. I am a film major, and a lot of what he said about setting the scene, making sure that the thing we want to track stands out from the background and all that just felt so relatable in a way. When we think about set design in films, we also look at the camera, how it see it because everything looks SO different on a camera than in real life, so we have to make sure that when we set up lighting it highlights the actress/actor or whatever we want to film, or that they are wearing clearly outstanding clothes. I know that this is not the same as trying to get a computer program to differenciate between things, but I felt like it was not too different either. And if we think about it, it makes so much sense, the computer doesn’t have conscience, doesn’t have a context about the world, and it needs guiding, maybe like a little child. I find the solution with the usage of the infrared the most exciting. I am not entirely sure how it works, but I feel like that technology would give us the most accurate results.
This usage of computers is further interesting, because it is able to transform compley human life into quantifiable data and thus interactive installations. I feel like for each different use of computer tracking it has a different level of capacitz, but findamentally it is definitely an important part. For example with Standards and Double Standards it is really important, in order to translate the meaning of the artwork correctly; if the computer is not able to track the movements correctly I feel like the whole message gets lost. I feel the same with Suicide Box although that is a much deeper sociological installation. With this latter example, the capacity to track is also important because it is able to expose basically “invisible” realities, that would not be made public otherwise. Just like the true number of suicides happening on the Golden Gate bridge.