An example of nonhuman photography I’ve been in close proximity of is photography taken using computer algorithms. One example that I’ve experienced but am not sure counts is generative images. Since they use real images to create a completely new one, this may not qualify as technology but is a type of not completely human Art form that I think of often in these types of conversations. I definitely agree with Zylinska that these new forms of capture open of new questions and opportunities. Specifically, such as the new questions regarding the history being described in the article about Angkor Wat. Having new forms of capture that may be “nonhuman photography” I believe does not destroy photography or ruin any art forms, but instead, as Zylinska stated, creates new opportunities for discovery of information and for humans to work alongside of technology. Just because humans may be giving up some control, does not invalidate the future of photography, capture, or art. All of the information in the article I believe further serves the excitement for a future where technology and humans can work together to discover new information, opportunities, and perspectives.