←back to thread

164 points thunderbong | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
AStonesThrow ◴[] No.41855082[source]
This is unfortunate, and perhaps more pernicious than obvious deep fakes, is a video filter that lies to the recipients.

Several years ago during the pandemic, I enlisted a job coach to get me hired. One of her paramount concerns was my eye-contact with the camera. She said it's so important. Am I paying attention? Am I an honorable man who maintains eye contact when I'm in a conversation? If I look away, am I collecting my thoughts, or prevaricating?

Many supervisors, managers, and teachers will judge their employees by whether they can pay attention during meetings, or if they're distracted, in their phone's screen, looking at keyboard, glancing off at children or spouse. Even more important, if you're meeting your wife and she can't even maintain your attention, what kind of husband are you?

If you employ a gadget to lie about this, then I hope they fire you and find someone who'll be honest. I hope your wife sends you to sleep on the sofa.

replies(6): >>41855158 #>>41855166 #>>41855180 #>>41855361 #>>41855534 #>>41855715 #
niij ◴[] No.41855361[source]
edit: studio_seven said it better than I could. You're confused on what the perspective is with videoconferencing. There is no hardware with a camera in the middle of the screen; so you're always "looking away" to some degree.
replies(1): >>41855429 #
AStonesThrow ◴[] No.41855429[source]
No, I'm not confused at all. As I pointed out, the standard for 100 years: if you want eye contact, you look into the camera lens. The only thing that's changed recently is the availability of a direct, instantaneous monitor to distract us.

Furthermore, if this corrects only someone who's looking directly at the screen, it'd be tolerable. But does it also correct eyes looking at a keyboard, eyes looking at a smartphone screen, eyes looking at a wayward toddler? That's worse.

Also... ten cents per minute? That's highway robbery!

replies(1): >>41858613 #
niij ◴[] No.41858613[source]
If I'm looking at a camera lens I'm not making eye contact. This isn't about broadcasting it's about videoconferences.
replies(1): >>41863152 #
1. AStonesThrow ◴[] No.41863152[source]
No, you don't understand the definition of "eye contact". Contact, by definition, is when my eyes meet yours directly. It takes two to tango, and to maintain eye contact, it is necessary for both of us to cooperate.

The camera is the eye. Anyone seeing video of me is seeing me through the eyes of a camera. Therefore, to "make eye contact" I look into the camera, not into arbitrary pixels. In videoconferencing, it's wholly irrelevant where my audience's eyes are located, whether they're even visible. In videoconferencing, our cameras are the eyes, and that's how to make eye contact, because when I see you on the screen looking into the camera, your eyes are directed towards mine seeing the screen.

For over a hundred years, any subject of a camera has known that if you look into that camera lens, then your gaze will be perceived as "eye contact" to any viewers. Where do you look when you're taking a selfie? Or a wedding photographer is taking your photo? Do you look in the photographer's eyes? Do you stare at his flashbulb? That's fucking nuts!

Why is this so hard to understand?

If AI is directed to help us lie about a particular, very human, interaction cue, then is it any surprise we're a world full of autists and Asperger babies?

replies(1): >>41865756 #
2. niij ◴[] No.41865756[source]
I don't even know how to respond to this. Your rants particularly near the end are borderline aggressive. This is not important. Have a good one.