|
|
|
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ Even if machine listening did work by analogising human audition, the question o |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One way of responding to this possibility would be to simply bracket the question of listening and think in terms of "listening effects" instead, so that the question is no longer whether machines *are* listening, but what it means to live in a world in which they act like it, and we do too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another response would be to say that when or if machines listen, they listen "operationally": not in order to understand, or even facilitate human understanding, but to perform an operation [Faroki, Paglen]: to diagnose, to identify, to recognize, to trigger [Andrejevic interview]. And we could notice that as listening becomes increasingly operational sound does too. Operational acoustics: sounds made by machines for machine listeners. Adversarial acoustics: sounds made by machines *against* human listeners, and vice versa [B Li]. |
|
|
|
Another response would be to say that when or if machines listen, they listen "operationally": not in order to understand, or even facilitate human understanding, but to perform an operation [Faroki, Paglen]: to diagnose, to identify, to recognize, to trigger [Andrejevic interview]. And we could notice that as listening becomes increasingly operational sound does too. Operational acoustics: sounds made by machines for machine listeners. Adversarial acoustics: sounds made by machines *against* human listeners, and vice versa [B Li]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Footnotes |
|
|
|
|
