←back to thread

164 points thunderbong | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.153s | source
Show context
albert_e ◴[] No.41855365[source]
Practically --

I feel hardware technology can improve further to allow under-the-LED-display cameras .... so that we can actually look at both the camera and the screen at the same time.

(There are fingerprint sensors under mobile screens now ...and I think even some front facing cameras are being built in without sacrificing a punch hole / pixels. There is scope to make this better and seamless so we can have multiple cameras if we want behind a typical laptop screen or desktop monitor.)

This would make for a genuine look-at-the-camera video whether we are looking at other attendees in a meeting or reading off our slide notes (teleprompter style).

There would be no need to fake it.

More philosophically --

I don't quite like the normalization of AI tampering with actual videos and photos casually -- on mobile phone cameras or elsewhere. Cameras are supposed to capture reality by default. I know there is already heavy noise reduction, color correction, auto exposure etc ... but no need to use that to justify more tampering with individual facial features and expressions.

Videos are and will be used for recording humans as they are. The capturing of their genuine features and expressions should be valued more. Video should help people bond as people with as genuine body lanuage as possible. Videos will be used as memories of people bygone. Videos will be used as forensic or crime scene evidence.

Let us protect the current state of video capture. All AI enhancements should be marketed separately under a different name, not silently added into existing cameras.

replies(15): >>41855531 #>>41855684 #>>41855730 #>>41855733 #>>41856141 #>>41857383 #>>41857590 #>>41857839 #>>41858056 #>>41858420 #>>41859057 #>>41859076 #>>41859617 #>>41860060 #>>41863348 #
YeahThisIsMe ◴[] No.41857383[source]
I agree with this.

I don't actually want the person I'm talking to to appear to be looking directly into my eyes because it's weird - it means they're looking at the camera and not at me on the screen, talking to them.

replies(3): >>41857855 #>>41858471 #>>41860614 #
1. smeej ◴[] No.41857855[source]
Somehow I've apparently made a different adjustment to this than most people. My therapist was commenting on it the other day, how I do look directly into the camera when I want her to see me as making "eye contact," rather than looking directly at where I see her eyes.

She's taking this as an autistic adaptation NT people are less likely to make, like my gestures are practiced and tailored for the sake of the other, not my own sake. I want to "look in her eyes" to make a point, because that's one of the ways you show people you're making an important point, not to see how she's responding to what I'm saying.

I haven't done any of it on purpose. It's apparently just how I've adapted to the weird communication space of having a gap between actually looking at someone's eyes and being seen to be looking at someone's eyes.

replies(1): >>41859976 #
2. Iku_Tri ◴[] No.41859976[source]
I don't want to be mean to your therapist, but really?

Understanding camera eyelines counts as autistic now?

You're fine doing that. Sorry, but that comment she made really sent me.

Reminds me of how the film department forced the digital artists to take a Cinematography and lighting classed irl so their final project renders would improve.

replies(1): >>41860641 #
3. smeej ◴[] No.41860641[source]
It might be one thing if I had done it on purpose, because I was thinking about camera eyelines. But it wasn't deliberate. I subconsciously choose based on how another person will see me, because I don't really expect to get a whole lot of information from seeing them. Something about this being a type of "masking" in autistic women, trying harder to get my social cues across to others, but not expecting myself to receive them.

I think maybe I have "trauma masquerading as ASD," because the symptoms are subjectively improving as I learn to down-regulate my nervous system, but then I don't much care what label gets put on why I'm weird. I'm much more interested in figuring out what to do with the different ways I'm weird. I'm old enough that I can't think of ways formal diagnosis would help me, so I'd rather assume each challenge is treatable until I find out that it isn't.