4 ms·
Yeah - as interesting as it is as an art piece, I hope nobody takes it seriously. But hey, satire is at its best when you have to squint at it for a few beats
by leggomylibro 7y ago
Yeah - as interesting as it is as an art piece, I hope nobody takes it seriously.
But hey, satire is at its best when you have to squint at it for a few beats to tell that it's a joke. As long as they don't actually sell stuff like this with the same marketing, what's the harm?
- deanstag 7y agoIt will reinforce the beliefs of gullible people about the underlying superstitions. They might not purchase it, but they will read it without realizing it is satire, and move on feeling that such things exist as evidence for such beliefs.
- jupp0r 7y agoIsn't that the whole point of subversive art? If nobody would fall for it, how could it ever be taken seriously?
- rexpop 7y agoI don't think so. You have it backwards. The point of this piece isn't to fool "superstition believers", but to draw a comparison between black-box algorithmic governence and superstition. You're reading a level of malevolent mischievousness into "subversive art" that I don't detect.
- rexpop 7y agoAnd what about those gullible enough to have confidence in commercial AI efforts? Law Enforcement's facial recognition, automatic sentencing, insurance premiums, and a whole slew of other black-box algorithms govern our lives. Vast swathes of the modern economy are no less superstitious than these toys. At least, that is one thrust behind the piece. > Subjective judgments and biased datasets can easily be turned into objective measures and potential truths, which will then be embedded in devices around us. So you see, it's not intended to fool the gullible-vis-superstition, but to unfool the gullible-vis-technology.