The Janusian face of facial recognition, part 1: Its subface, interface, and surface
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/dasc.25.8.6Keywords:
biometric identification, computational semiotics, facial recognition technology (FRT), probabilistic artificial intelligence (ProbAI), semiotic deblackboxingAbstract
Facial recognition has a Janusian face. In the instant of its interaction, facial recognition brings many faces together into relation. It is not only visually representational but also computationally re-presentational. To make facial recognition knowable, therefore, one needs first to make its many faces visible. One must expose, so to say, the functional relationalities between rhizomatic facialities within these commercial products and their proprietary computing. Only then can the ways facial recognition technology systems work, and how they are either adversely misused or beneficially used, be substantively challenged or tactically critiqued. Toward this end, from the critical standpoint of a computational semiotics both Peircean and pragmatist, I apply a method of semiotic deblackboxing. I divide my inquiry between two distinct investigations: here in part one, I explicate this theoretical approach; then in part two, I explore its practical application. Across these two parts, I probe how, and in what ways, the artificial intelligence of facial recognition not only comprises a computational, mechanical, and technological system, but also constitutes a semiotic system. The question is this: Does the artificial intelligence system of a facial recognition technology have semiotic agency? That is, is it therefore able to process the action of a sign that has genuine triadic sign relations rather than non-genuine dyadic quasi-sign relations? In other words, is artificial intelligence actually either artificial or intelligent? As I argue here, this Janusian or multiple relation is the intelligent result, not of the semiotic machine, its efficient causation, and allopoiesis, but of the semiotic animal, our final causation, and autopoiesis.
References
Andersen, P. B., P. Hasle and P. A. Brandt. 1997. Machine Semiosis (Maschinensemiose). In Posner, R., K. Robering, and T.A. Sebeok (eds.). Semiotik: Ein Handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen Grundlagen von Nature und Kultur/Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture, Theilband 1/Volume 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 548–570.
Ashby, W. R. 1956. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
Ashby, W. R. (1958) 1991. General Systems Theory as a New Discipline.
In Klir, G. J. (ed.). Facets of Systems Science, Second Edition, International Federation for Systems Research International Series on Systems Science and Engineering 7. Boston: Springer, 299–308. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_16. Originally published in Bertalanfly,
L. von, A. Rapoport (eds.). General Systems: Yearbook of the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor, MI: The Society for General Systems Research, 1–6.
Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes and T. Pinch. 2012 [1987]. General Introduction from the Original Edition. In Bijker, W. E., T. P. Hughes and T. Pinch (eds.). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. 25th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, xxxix-xliv.
Bunge, M. 1963. “A General Black Box Theory”. Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, 346–358. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/287954.
Buolamwini, J. 2023. Unmasking AI: My Mission to Protect What is Human in a World of Machines. New York: Random House.
Crawford, K. 2021. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Denning, P. J. 2012. “Opening Statement: What is Computation?”. The Computer Journal, Vol. 55, No. 7, 805–810.
Denning, P. J., C. H. Martell. 2015. Great Principles of Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
European Parliament. 2024. Artificial Intelligence Act: MEP’S Adopt Landmark Law. European Parliament News, 13 March 2024. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law.
Fetzer, J. H. 1990. Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits. Studies in Cognitive System (COFS) 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gates, K. A. 2011. Our Biometric Future: Facial Recognition Technology and the Culture of Surveillance. New York: New York University Press.
Geertz, C. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 3–30.
Glanville, R. 1982. “Inside Every White Box There Are Two Black Boxes Trying to Get Out.” Behavioural Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1–11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830270102.
Glanville, R. 2009. “Black Boxes”. Cybernetics and Human Knowing: A Journal of Second Order Cybernetics, Autopoiesis and Cybersemiotics, Vol. 16, No. 1–2, 153–167.
Hinterwaldner, I., L. Manovich, M. Warnke and F. Nake. 2014. “Roundtable: From Algorithmic Signs to Cultural Analytics”. Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Vol. 59, No. 2, 291–302. Available at: https://doi.org/10.28937/1000106251 (accessed 14 March 2024).
Introna, L. D. 2005. “Disclosive Ethics and Information Technology: Disclosing Facial Recognition Systems”. Ethics and Information Technology, Vol. 7, No. 2, 75–86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4583-2.
Irvine, M. 2022. Semiotics in Computation and Information Systems. In Pelkey, J., S. W. Matthews (eds.). Bloomsbury Semiotics, Volume 2: Semiotics in the Natural and Technical Sciences. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 203–237.
Ketner, K. L., A. F. Stewart. 1984. “The Early History of Computer Design: Charles Sanders Peirce and Marquand’s Logical Machines”. The Princeton University Library Chronicle, Vol. 45, No. 3, 187–224. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26402393.
Lakoff, G., M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Layton, E. 1977. Conditions of Technological Development. In Spiegel-Rösing, I., D. de Solla Price (eds.). Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. London: Sage, 197–222.
Leone, M. 2024. “Semiotics of the Black Box: On the Rhetorics of Algorithmic Images”. Visual Communication, Vol. 23, No. 3, 426–451 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14703572241247120.
Maturana, H. R., F. Varela. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (BSPS) 42. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. Originally published in Spanish: 1972. De Maquinas y Seres Vivos. Santiago: Editorial Universitaria S.A.
Meunier, J.–G. 2022. Computational Semiotics. Bloomsbury Academic. Nadin, M. 2007. “Semiotic Machine”. The Public Journal of Semiotics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 57–75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.37693/pjos/2007.1.8815.
Nake, F. 2008. Surface, Interface, Subface: Three Cases of Interaction and One Concept. In Seifert, U., J. H. Kim and A. Moore (eds.). Paradoxes of Interactivity: Perspectives for Media Theory, Human-Computer Interaction, and Artistic Investigations. Transcript Verlag, 92–109.
Nake, F., S. Grabowski. 2006. The Interface as Sign and as Aesthetic Event. In Fishwick, P.A. (ed.). Aesthetic Computing. The MIT Press, 53–70 Nöth, W. 2002. “Semiotic Machines”. S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development), Vol. 3, No. 3, 81–99.
Ovid. (8 CE) 2011. Times and Reasons: A New Translation of Fasti. (transl. Anne Wiseman and Peter Wiseman. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peirce, C.S. (1902) 1976. The New Elements of Mathematics, Volume 4: Mathematical Philosophy. Carolyn Eisele (ed.). The Hague: Mouton Publishers. (Cited as NEM.)
Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 1931–1935, Vols. 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.). 1958, Vols. 7–8, ed. Arthur W. Burks (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Cited as CP.)
Peters, J. D., B. Peters. 2016. “Norbert Wiener as Pragmatist.” Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, Vol. 7, No. 2, 157–172. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1386/ejpc.7.2.157_1.
Ruesch, J., G. Bateson 1951. Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.
Ryle, G. (1971) 2009. The Thinking of Thoughts: What is ‘le Penseur’ Doing? In Ryle, G. Collected Papers, Vol. 2, Collected Essays: 1929–1968. London: Routledge, 494–510.
Sørensen, B., T. Thellefsen and M. Thellefsen. 2020. A Peircean Semiotics of Technological Artefacts. In Jappy, T. (ed.). The Bloomsbury Companion to Contemporary Peircean Semiotics. London: Bloomsbury, 253–275.
Souza, C. S. de. 2005. The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction. Acting with Technology 3. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wiener, N. (1948) 1961. Cybernetics: or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Second Edition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Winner, L. (1991) 1993. “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology”. Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 18, No. 3, 362–378. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800306. Originally published in Pitt, C., E. Lugo (eds.). The Technology of Discovery and the Discovery of Technology: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of The Society for Philosophy and Technology. Blacksburg, VA: Society for Philosophy and Technology, 503–519.
