This week’s reading leans a bit more towards the technical side, and I honestly think that it brings a new perspective to the table about the intelligence of computers. As the reading suggested, “a computer, without additional programming, is unable to answer even the most elementary questions” that humans can! The concept of computer vision is so interesting because I often understand it the way my vision works (looking at the content & understanding it) where in reality, computers process data pixel by pixel, character by character.
The reading also identifies the 3 low-level algorithms that help computers “see:” frame differencing, background subtraction, and brightness thresholding. At this point of the reading, I found myself asking 1) are these techniques used at the same time and 2) how exactly is this different from human vision? Do we also do this in a faster, almost automatic manner that it seems “natural,” or we do process data completely differently?
I especially appreciate the example of Limbotime. By piecing the illustrative photo and the author’s description, the theoretical aspects discussed prior in the reading makes a lot more sense. I also really admire the amount of details that goes into an arguably quite simple game (identification of body, tracking of body, position relative to imaginary lines, etc.)
Despite all of the above, the creepiest part that stood out to me is the issue of surveillance, particularly the project Suicide Box at the Golden Gate Bridge. Overall, surveillance is complicated because it directly interferes with privacy, consent, etc. But for Suicide Box especially, the system is recording very very sensitive and “negative” scenes. It’s also notable that in the same period, the system counted 17 instances of suicide, while official reports had 13. Does this suggest that the system has flaws with its vision and identification? Could it mistaken humans and other objects? Or is it so accurate that it reveals the flaws of official reports? I think it’s so disturbing and creepy overall, but this reading definitely confronts the potential dangers and unethical aspects of computer vision that I overlooked.