Just an FYI, if a company is ever actively pushing for regulation where they are a part of the equation, you should be suspicious. Like in your example, they wouldn’t actually care about the regulation beyond the PR of “look look we think this shouldn’t be allowed either!”
Speaking as someone currently living in the US, around here you have zero right to privacy in public places, or places that can be seen from public places. Like, to a fucked up level. I could stand at the bottom of your driveway recording through your bedroom window, and it would be legal.
Now, do I think that is good? No. In my opinion it’s taken things to an extreme.
But I also don’t think I should have the power to run over to a tourist and demand they delete their photo because I happened to be in the background.
Is there a middle ground? Absolutely. But that middle ground is where I think the majority of smart glasses users will fall when they hit critical mass.
It’s already illegal to do… illegal things. Why are we making them “doubly illegal” in the hopes that somehow the bad guys are going to listen this time? This isn’t like guns where we are talking about regulating every camera, it’s like banning a desert eagle and calling it a job well done.
Edit: Last sentence is weird but I can’t think of how to reword it this late at night, I hope it makes some sense at least.
You can’t think of a single non-pervert, non-accessibility use for these?
Meta bullshit aside, because they obviously know exactly who they are catering to and it’s unfortunate. Recording lectures, AI (not LLM) identification of works of art at a museum, to the meter directions in areas with bad GPS data, recording a protest, recording police interactions, streaming hardware demos, and more. Anything you can currently legitimately record, but it’s hands free so you don’t need to sit there and frame the image.
Add in some lenses that can display instead of just correct your prescription? You’ve now moved past simply recording, and into augmented reality where information can be layered on top of your vision.
Just because you can’t think of a legit use doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. You can use a wrench to drive a nail in, but the proper tool is still the hammer.
Edit: Hell, I’d love to be able to kick off a recording when playing with the younger kids in the family. They see a phone out in front of you recording and want you to show them things, but glasses are just glasses.
But there are many cameras that do this already. Cameras that go in your button hole, pen cameras, even your cell phone, and most of them have no indication they are recording at all.
I’ve mentioned it before, but when I’m shopping for something for my spouse, i often FaceTime them and just put my phone with the camera facing outward in my shirt pocket, no one has ever given it a second look because it’s just a mundane thing to do, no one thinks it might be recording.
Thats why I feel like this is the tech equivalent to banning hammers. If someone wants to smash a window, they can use any number of implements. Banning a hammer does nothing but hurt people who have legitimate need of a hammer.
I’m still not convinced.
Cameras have existed for decades, right? And it’s been legal in many places to take videos of whatever in public that whole time. But Y’know what’s not legal? Upskirts shots, down blouse shots, recording others in the bathroom, and more.
Why does the camera being on your face somehow make this form factor worse than a GoPro on your forehead, or a phone in your shirt pocket?
I quite seriously do not understand why every other previous hardware capable of recording was fine, but glasses are where we draw the line as perverted.
I personally say jack up the repercussions if you feel the need, but don’t ban a hammer just because it can be used to break a window.
You realize companies have and do fire people for actions in their personal lives, right? Especially in the US where virtually everyone works “at will” and having signed a piece of paper stating they would not hurt the reputation of the company or face termination? Other countries and contracts have similar clauses. Sweden is one such country, where there is a process involved but it is still very much a thing.
So why is it when an individual high up in the company, someone with decision power and who directly benefits from sales, does something that hurts the public perception, suddenly you’re asking us to just ignore it?
Why is it that your accusation of astroturfing sounds suspiciously like… well, astroturfing.
That is… very much a different thing in many different ways.
If people were buying them during WWII for instance, that would be a huge problem.
This has been a thing in Firefox for well over a year.
O.o No? This was employees of the company, not volunteers who submit changes or watch for accuracy. Mods are in no way shape or form employees of Reddit, other than employees who also just happen to mod a subreddit, they are volunteers.
It was normally used to rewatch home movies.
I could’ve sworn there was a study that showed phones are less of a problem than gigantic cars, but that may have been damage/death toll instead of crash rate.
OPEN UP AND ACCEPT YOUR WINNING!
I bit the bullet to see what it actually does. duck.ai doesn’t recognize the image alone as anything more than a pixelated thumbnail, and the entire link being sent just has it spit out that there is indeed an attempt to “inject” a role play prompt.
This is a stupid as it sounds.
Pretty sure it asks you what life you lead during onboarding does it not?
If you set your step quota to 10 steps, you can both hit your quota and have gained nothing from it. This is a problem with users setting quotas too low, not a problem of the device giving bad information.
Could this not be said for IDEs with code awareness such as M$’s intellisense, among other tools that accelerate development speed?
What you are describing isn’t an AI problem, is people taking a two week bootcamp and calling themselves a software engineer.
It’s not scaremongering, it’s advertisement.
Sharp rise in incidents of humans being idiots, more like it.
If you give an LLM something you tell is a sandbox, that is if fact not a sandbox, it’s not “escaping users control” when it treats the open internet as part of the sandbox. You explicitly told it that it did not have access to the open internet!
Pretty sure that requirement is slightly overblown, just don’t travel near the winter months and you’re likely fine.
“Okay mom, you need to install this VPN, log in, and make sure it’s on whenever you’re using Immich. Can you install it for Dad too? Now I’m going to call grandma back and explain that it isn’t a Deen Peen Em and she’s never going to find that.”
There are times and places. The moment you want the non tech side of the family involved, a proper with server over the open internet is usually the better option.