I would like to remind everyone that Jan is still with us, I think. Yeah, he is. Okay, so if anyone wants to raise a question or comment, I can. I just asked myself, and it's maybe for the both of you, a question in a sense, because if it's so much about the future of the topic and what technology is, it's like you quoted my knowledge report, and I think your discussion was quite a lot about the future, why there was some certain moment of not applying and not thematizing science fiction, rejecting science fiction there. I just asked myself, is it not relevant for you anymore? Is it now cliche as like my not if a report for sure is a cliche but even like the projection in the future like all this technological topics is Reveal basically also faster higher bigger and so on that's for me it's just interesting to know why not going to the science fiction area as well. Okay. I think, like... Okay. I mean, like, privately, I love science fiction, and I'm, like, reading a lot about it. I think that could have been an approach, obviously, to like also incorporate into it. And I mean, I think there is also like a way of like how science fiction like perpetuates also this like idea of technological progress. But also, I guess there is a lot of science fiction kind of like tries to critically examine it. And maybe what we can take from it is I guess this notion of speculation but in like because I come like from from gender studies so we have like this feminist sense of like speculation which is more like thinking through the presence and therefore like through like kind of like performative worlding coming to a future, then maybe only like this science fiction way of depicting a future out of nothing and then like trying to enforce that. I don't really know if I have an answer to that. Maybe it's because I don't really read science fiction and don't everyone look at me at the same time. Yeah, I don't know. I think that's the only answer I can give is science fiction is not really part of my personal culture in a way. I mean, of course, I watch science fiction movies and Minority Report is a great reference there. Yeah. I actually do have a question for you. Just the reference with the Minority Report, the first one was literature. Do you remember what it was? Was it like at least something, a research publication, or was it something... No, no, no't it was a novel by a French author but I can't remember right now who who was exactly I will look it up and I can tell you but it wasn't no it wasn't like a scientific report it was really like using culture in order to warn us I guess about the future. Okay, culture and entertainment. Yes, exactly. Anyone else with a question? Hello, thank you for your talks. It was a really great panel as a whole. My question now is for Sarah. I was really fascinated by your approach and I also consider like I see some connections with for example the small file media festival in Canada and the small file photo festival in the UK and how they are also connected to more like eco activism in media especially thinking about now in relationship also to AI generated images and videos, like the amount of processing power that they require. And that's like so unsustainable. And like also thinking about like this kind of counter aesthetics being the sort of small files or glitches and noisy and like this lack of resolution can also be part of it, like the materiality of the media itself. And I would like you, if you could comment more on that material side of, yeah, this sort of counter aesthetics. Thanks. I feel like you said so much of it. I do. I think part of it is, again, that same concept of thinking about what computers make easy and working against the things that they make easy. So it's very easy to have large files now, right? It's very, very easy to take something and just blow it up and have no repercussions for that. The power that runs, even the cloud, right? Like even if you're not doing AI models, you know, it is something I struggle with sometimes to be like, if I'm posting something on the internet so that people can see it because I want to connect with them, I know that I am explicitly taking water away from, say, residents of the Dalles in Oregon where, you know, cloud service, where service centers exist. And it's a trade-off that I'm making in this existence. And so what can I do to also work against that? Because I can't by myself turn everything around. But maybe I can find small ways to still participate and not opt out entirely. And so I think doing more work like small internet in general, small file systems, learning how to break things and therefore fix them is a really useful approach. And I would love to see especially more work with small files themselves. Another big pro of using the Fairlight, of using a synthesizer from the 1980s is I don't spend all of my time having to manage my hard drives full of images because my images are tiny. They're all like 480 images and they look beautiful when you project them big. You don't have to have like that hard edge that the resolution gives you and I think being able to encounter that more and more maybe will help people know it inside in a way that's not just in your head. I misunderstood. I misunderstood. This is a question that's also directed at Sarah a little bit. But anyone else, also welcome to jump in. Thanks for a wonderful series of talks. Thinking about aesthetic resistance and thinking about the thing that AI does where it just consumes aesthetics and reproduces them. What kind of self-defenses can we put against aesthetic resistance just then being consumed and reproduced by AI itself going forwards? That's a really good question. I think there's a technical answer and there's a social answer. So the technical answer is, I don't know if people know about this, but there are artists and technologists working on basically poisoning watermarks. So you can, and I cannot think of what it's called, so if anybody remembers, please tell me, but essentially you can run your work through this watermark program that does not change how it looks, but it does make it so that if a model ingests it and tries to tell what's in it, it can't. It'll, you know, you'll have a picture of a dog and somehow it poisons it to tell the model that it's an image of a cat, which I think is fascinating. Well, I guess, so there's three ways. So there's that. You can just make things abstract, and then it's very hard for models to make them, because, like, it's very, you know, a computer can be like, I think I know what a cat looks like, or I've ingested enough images that I can kind of replicate that, but how do you replicate, like, gritty, out-of-order feedback system? And then the third way, the social way, I think, is through shaming people and through creating scenes that are small and self-reinforcing and are not interested in sort of metastasizing. So this is going to sound unconnected, and then I will shut up, but Steve Albini died recently, and he is a very famous music producer who produced Nirvana and the Pixies and all sorts of things in the 90s. But no matter how famous he became as a recording engineer, he always stayed in Chicago and any band could hire him for $900 a day. And people were talking about that as a really important part of not selling out and sort of that like nice 90s vibe of selling out being a real thing that you shouldn't do has sort of disappeared. I think as life gets more expensive and things get hard and it's not unexplainable why people feel that way but like holding on to the idea of not selling out I think is an important way to do it. This is not art-related per se, but my personal way of kind of resisting against that is whenever I'm prompted with a captcha, and this is annoying, I do spend the first five minutes just tagging the wrong things. So when they say tag a bus, I tag all the, I don't know, crosswalks. Eventually I give up because otherwise you cannot access the site. Yann, do you hear us? I think we lost him. No? Is there anyone else with questions or comments? So maybe not to Jan. Not for the moment. Hi. There's actually from the Etherpad from online another question to Sarah. And I can just repeat it. I say thank you anyway for the time. And yeah, the question is what is the difference between such research by drafting sketches and glitch art. Is this, and this was like, you know, captions, is this a new glitch manifesto, or how is that different? I think the primary way that it's different is that, to me, glitch art is about specifically breaking the program or the machine itself. So, like, when I talk about data moshing, I use, there's a video collective called Signal Culture that makes a handful of things. I also use their frame buffer emulator, but they have a program called InterStream, and that is a data moshing emulator. If you were going to do, let's say, real or glitch data moshing, you would go into a video processing program and find the ways to delete the keyframes. And that's a very technical approach to art that I think is a really great valid art. And I love seeing people do it. It's not, I spend all day at work breaking things. I want to make pictures and not break things at home. So I think it's different in that way. But the look is the same, and because they can speak to each other, I think it's a useful way of building more of an overall... of everything together being behind that idea. Anyone else with a question or comment? Ian's back. No? I was just curious about the follow-up of this AI surveillance situation. Did this evolve or someone else raised this issue? Or is it going to happen? It's happening already. The idea was that the law is saying that it's for the Olympic Games because, of course, there will be a lot of people, so the surveillance is needed, apparently, in order to, whatever, look after the people. But the Olympics end at the end of September, and the law allows for the use of this technology until May of 2025. And my personal speculation, I probably should do more research into this before saying it out loud, but whatever. My personal speculation about why it ends in May of 2025 is because I think that's when the AI act comes into, like, actually power or whatever. So I think, you know, if there was no AI act, it would just go on forever. Because actually, yeah, the algorithmic video surveillance is, I'm pretty sure, illegal under the AI act. But as right now we're in a sort of gray zone, they're just experimenting with it. as right now we're in a sort of gray zone. They're just experimenting with it. And I'm sure they will find a way to kind of go around the AI act also to portray it somehow differently. But yeah, it's already being used. They tested it for the Rugby World Cup, which was six months ago or something. And they also, there was a big article, I remember somebody told me about that, they also tested it at a Depeche Mode concert. So, yeah. No, I don't know the results of the test. I doubt they would communicate that. I don't, yeah, I don't yeah I don't know ah can you hear me hi the big AI no I just wanted to say that I mean yeah of course there is this now in France but in France already I think in 2000 after there was this terrible accident in nice they want they implemented the eye system for facial recognition then the european union banned biometric data and now they also are using it in venice for to regulate tourist fluxes and i think as, as I understood, it was in concerts. But I think, I mean, it's just the starting, but it will probably be widely used in the future. I mean, it will be just more and more. Yeah, I agree. I mean, the fact also that it's now sort of in this law and France-wide doesn't mean that these technologies didn't exist before. I mean, they were already used, they were already implemented by Thales and whatever other companies. I think the French metro company already uses facial recognition or some kind of behavior recognition in their surveillance cameras within the trains. Yeah, in Nice there's a lot of surveillance. So it's just becoming more absolute, I guess. Thank you for your talks. I was just trying to fuse the talks together in my mind. And I started thinking about how the temporalities Jan and Anna talked about also tie it so closely to acceleration and making the distances between two points shorter. the distances between two points shorter and if there's maybe like a temporal form of resistance, I don't know, I can't really like finish my thought but I was thinking like if there's an aesthetic resistance maybe there's a kind of, I don't know, maybe there's a practice rooted in the sort of slowness that can counteract these temporalities that we're seeing. I don't know. It was just a thought. I'm trying to think. Yeah, maybe I can say something to that. I think it's really nice that you're mentioning acceleration, because I think this is also just another one of like these binaries that I was kind of like trying to get at because I think if we talk about techno-capitalist culture it's often like it's linear time it's acceleration and then like we kind of tend to go into that okay we just like gonna take the opposite position of everything of that and then it's like the best and I think with acceleration it's the same thing like capitalism doesn't only like reside on like this but it's also kind of like based on slowness and latency as like a precondition also so I'd be careful to like say slowness is like the solution or something because I know if you think of like financial markets speculating on the latency or like I don't know priority lines of people that like pay higher prices for tickets and other people are like waiting I I think both of these notions are kind of inherent in these temporalities. So that's why I was trying to get at looking maybe more at the relationships and at the quality of the relationship that's then, yeah, in the sense of a temporal solution. Yeah, I think maybe also looking at the relations that these temporalities actually create. We had a talk yesterday, I think in the evening, from, what is it called, the first one, do you remember? Where they were building this consentful technology and they were talking about slowness actually so maybe that would be a go-to also. If I might add, I was also like lately what I'm thinking a lot about is, yeah, rather I was thinking in slowness and acceleration and this kind of term is more really focusing also when I work on my art in general on outcomes because in general also all of these ideologies they're presented ideologies they're presented more as an idea of what the outcome could be, but of course outcomes are very, sometimes very unpredictable. And so lately I'm really concentrating on how could you, when you want to present something on a technological level to really think what are the outcomes in in the real world of such technology and it is a very hard thing to do i have to say and you can only it only functions with how do you say when you create a framework that is very limited and say when you create a framework that is very limited and therefore it's very very difficult but i think uh it really requires a lot of um how do you say preparation working really starting to formulate what are possible outcomes and not focusing in what could be the positive outcome singularly i don't know if i made it clear but it's somehow a progress that that the future after so to say the temporalities that are multiples when you present a new technological object and like try to map all of those uh outcomes and see whether it will really be so say positive I don't know I would say if uh if moving slowly or whatever slowness was the answer then I think the new motto should be move slow and mend things instead of move fast and break things um thank you all for this move slow and mend things instead of move fast and break things. Thank you all for that. Move slow and heal things, right, from logistics. Okay. I can't patent it. We've got another question. Okay, thanks a lot, all three. Four, if you're sorry. The guy online is always forgotten. But thank you very much for your presentations. I enjoyed as you were talking about the test grill bundle, and I always find this fascinating because obviously, as a nine white person, whenever here we're talking about long-termism, I'm always asking, am I included in this long-term that is being talked about? Because for example, when you spoke about this algorithmic surveillance I quickly thought about the two reasons in the US in the last three months were black people a woman and a man were wrongfully placed these scenes of crimes and arrested the woman was eight months pregnant and this guy had been hijacked and it's I had sex and had been hijacked and had sex and then been hijacked by a woman. And then AI then said, yeah, this woman matches the woman and then she was arrested and all. And of course the question there was, would common sense not have helped? Just saying, was the woman pregnant? Instead of relying on a tool to then do this. But why I'm saying this is I'm leading to a question where I'm asking. So as we are here talking about art and emitting radicalism, what is it that we can do practically to number one, challenge the existing narratives, and number two, the power structures that surround our understanding of technology, as well as our development of this same technology, so that we can have an equitable technology that I as a black person would not be asking myself if this technology is being developed am I included and of course I speak for other minorities because unfortunately all these guys I mean I was very happy of course when I heard that Nick Bostrom's whatever Institute was closed. But maybe what else can we do apart from having the closure of such things happen? Thank you. I think Sarah and I have a common response to that, which is to burn all data centers down. This is already mentioned in the keynote. And we were like, yes, no, that is the response. Yeah, I mean, I think there's so many different fronts that people can fight on, right? Like, I am so happy that there are people out there doing the policy fight. There's a book that I was reading, Codependent, that came out recently. And it's a woman who was a Wired journalist. And I actually found it very interesting because she said she started off the book as a techno-optimist. And she wanted to do some reporting about different people who were affected by AI but weren't working in the tech necessarily, but around the world. And by investigating it, it did, I think, to some extent, radicalize her. And so that is one useful front, somebody who's going out there and telling those stories. And there's another useful front that is one of the groups she talks about, and I totally cannot remember what they're called, but is an organization that is suing different governments, both in the UK and in Kenya, and finding active harms through algorithmic work, right? Through like Uber algorithms. And so there are people who are fighting that fight on a very tangible law-facing perspective. And there are people who are here today or making things that are talking about why this is ideologically and conceptually problematic so that people understand why they're doing the other fights. And so I think maybe the answer really is solidarity is finding the things that we can do that make sense for us and the people we are in the positions that we inhabit and doing all of those things together because you know there's like a billionaire group chat right like which sounds like the most cursed place I can possibly imagine is the Elon Musk billionaire group chat. But, you know, all of the recent tech layoffs, all of these things, they work together because they are a community. And there's more of us. So if we keep working together, I do believe we can keep fighting. I'm not a teleologist. I don't think we're destined to win. But I do think we're destined to fight and I think the more people are repressed the more people fight and hopefully together we can do it. Maybe to add something that's not just burn all data centers down and this is kind of my go-to answer. I think education is an obvious thing, but I think that is also an important tool, like educating people about digital culture, about why these things are important, especially kids, like younger generations, because I think as you grow older, it's kind of harder to change your mindset, but if you start indoctrinating the kids, that's a good way to start also if anyone wants to invest in my imaginary startup um it's like those scooter startups but for guillotines we're just going to start leaving them on the corners of cities and you can use an app and you can rent one with your friends it's called cutter i'm looking for v VC capital all the time. Yeah, I just have a comment. First, thank you, all of you, for this talk. It's really revealing for me because I feel that we reached some hope, like literally, or like I see some points that are real for me in my life. And I was just observing this topic of time that was somehow present in all the proposals. Like in Sarah's presentation, it was like feedback and continuity. All these elements are temporal. And also in your presentation or like the visuals that we saw, I felt there was a lot of air. Like you give time, you let things happen. It's not like you cut them immediately. And I felt this was like a good example of giving things time. Like also in Dasha's reflection, it takes time to go all these steps, you know? Like the first thing that the algorithm needs is time to change. And then to arrive to this processing, which I also experienced in your talk about time, in this reflection, like, okay, this is not the thing but we continue thinking so for me it's just because I think also this AI aesthetics and structure is very connected to this attention span at least how we experience it it's like a lot of information overload and we, by consequence, like we are not able to pay attention in longer terms and then it's like a feedback of that is like we are not able to reflect or give things time. So I would say that maybe instead of like acceleration or slowness I would say that maybe instead of acceleration or slowness, I would just say maybe dynamics. Natural dynamics are essential. Whatever comes with the matter of things. That I think it's connected to life and maybe like more vivid examples of rhythm, yeah thank you Do we have time for one last question, maybe? Or not? Yeah, so we can, I guess we can Or not. Yeah. So we can, I guess we can end the talk here. Thank you, everyone, for your insightful comments and questions. Thank you to the artists and researchers. And I would like to invite you to do some more resisting at Dasha and Sarah's workshop also tomorrow at two o'clock. And I guess the program continues this afternoon from two. Thank you everyone. Vielen Dank.