But then, I am not trying to hide anything.
Just pointing out that your "philosophy" has become a paranoid dream. It has nothing to do with photography.
I welcome mass surveillance of my photographs. It would be a welcome change from their current obscurity. Perhaps I could get a gallery show.Until you know what someone is looking for, I think that's "whistling past the grave yard." And, oh by the way, you can't ever know what someone might be looking for. The whole power of mass surveillance is based on that principle. If no one knows what the target is, no one knows where it is safe to stand.
That link is a mix of sound engineering principles and pseudoscience. It's built on the completely unprovable assertion that all decision making is machine like, and hints at philosophical determinism. The Deep part of the learning simply refers to the layers through which data is changed. It's an argument from complexity, the inference being that given sufficient layers a machine will exhibit intelligence. it depends what you mean by intelligence of course, but most people would agree it demands conscious awareness. Hardcore materialists won't go along with this, but the Daniel Dennett's of the world don't believe we are conscious in any meaningful sense anyway. Which leaves the rhetorical non sequitur of someone using consciousness to argue that he isn't truly conscious.
[
I welcome mass surveillance of my photographs. It would be a welcome change from their current obscurity. Perhaps I could get a gallery show.
Keep banging away though with your hammer. You're bound to hit a nail eventually.
Well I agree right back! Creativity often involves an original or unmotivated bringing together of disparate elements that people recognise and give value to. Data processing is built on the recognition of precedents, not a visceral response to anomalies. That response may rely on an appreciation of dogs, mathematics, texture, balloons, humour and culture simultaneously, along with millions of other potential factors none of which have been combined in the same way before. Enabling a computer to play chess well is relatively easy. Getting one to understand why a fart gag is or isn't funny, or a Rothko painting sells for a hundred million, much less so.I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.
All opinions are worthwhile.I agree: artificial intelligence is really highly complex algorithmic searching and processing. Not thinking. Not creativity. My opinion.
A few words on the essence are coming to mind. Photography is:
capture a visual event
the individual’s decision
an image
with a camera
an intention
to reproduce
Display image
I suspect I'm not alone in finding your responses often convey condescension.
Unquestionably. It's my intentional response to nastiness and ignorance of the post to which they are attempting to refute.
You know, the one where someone jumps up and yells, "I'm calling BS!" when what was offered was say, personal experience, or the guys who do such lousy fact checking, or guys who assault my character, not the argument, or expect me to "prove" something on a forum. That sort of nonsense will get a condescending reply. I work hard at it, too.
Condescending? Check
Arrogant? Check.
On my ignore list? Check!
I'm not sure it is any easier to get a person to understand those things.Enabling a computer to play chess well is relatively easy. Getting one to understand why a fart gag is or isn't funny, or a Rothko painting sells for a hundred million, much less so.
In the 1970s and 1980s, in certain industries it would have been prudent to ask prospective employees for a complete list of what they had produced and had published.Matt,
I was an employer in the 70s and 80s. My argument is not about employment practices, it's about the effect on photography of various forms of surveillance. In the 1970s when I was employing people, it never would have occurred to me to ask to see all the photographs they'd taken. Again, that is meant to point out a difference in the societal systems from then to now.
Well I agree right back! Creativity often involves an original or unmotivated bringing together of disparate elements that people recognise and give value to. Data processing is built on the recognition of precedents, not a visceral response to anomalies. That response may rely on an appreciation of dogs, mathematics, texture, balloons, humour and culture simultaneously, along with millions of other potential factors none of which have been combined in the same way before. Enabling a computer to play chess well is relatively easy. Getting one to understand why a fart gag is or isn't funny, or a Rothko painting sells for a hundred million, much less so.
Those "fingerprints" were added predominantly to deal with counterfeiting operations. Modern printers are capable of producing really high quality copies of a variety of valuable things, including currency.Not something brand new, but significant for people who print their own pictures on lasers and inkjets.
Dead Link Removed
Again, we have two interesting aspects. First, that while no law required this tracking of prints, the printer companies were only too happy to fulfill the request of the state to do so. Second, it is of course, just another chilling effect on photography in this age.
All opinions are worthwhile.
Dead Link Removed
I'd call it "artificial creativity" and clearly it can already compete with human creativity. Ergo, it can replace human creativity which was my point in posting about it.
An employer who ignores that power and hires without even considering the internet "footprint" of a prospective employee is like an employer who hires a known author without learning about their writings.
Your not alone.I suspect I'm not alone in finding your responses often convey condescension.
Not sure how embedded information detracts from the potential for creativity. Interesting piece though. Lot of photographers watermark their digital work/reproductions. Not really scary, perhaps prudent.
Understood. There is always a law enforcement rationalization for every form of tracking and surveillance. It's the subsequent use and abuse which forms the dangers of theses systems. Tracking a political activist (such as the FBI is notorious for doing for generations now) is then just a part of that counterfeit tracking system. There's of course always a superficial public rationale for every one of the what..millions? of laws. Printer tracking is just a thread in the massive fabric of surveillance.Those "fingerprints" were added predominantly to deal with counterfeiting operations.
@markjwyattNot sure how embedded information detracts from the potential for creativity. Interesting piece though. Lot of photographers watermark their digital work/reproductions. Not really scary, perhaps prudent.
I quite agree.If I were hiring today, I'd look for what I always have looked for in people - good skills, wide ranging knowledge beyond mere technical matters, and personal integrity. About 90% of that I can determine face to face. I wouldn't have any more interest in their Facebook account than I would have going through their bedroom, or briefcase. A "job" is a transaction and nothing more. To root through people's non-job life may be possible, but I find it unethical and destructive for a free society. But, I well understand I'm on the extreme side of personal liberty and most of current society is on the highly limited side of personal liberty. So, i'm in a tiny minority.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?