top 86 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 136 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 95 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, this is understandable but like, where were these people who are up in arms two decades ago? The ship has sailed. Walk around in any store, mall, shopping center, urban area... But no, all those recording devices are to keep me "safe". But glasses, now that's too far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    There’s a huge difference between a somewhat stationary surveillance camera and a hidden personal camera that films 24/7 without an indicator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I fail to see the difference. Actually, if anything, I'd make the argument that it's less invasive. Sure, the one person can be a stalker or whatever, and the camera company can be acting in bad faith, but they'd have to find you and maintain visual contact all day. The moment you step/drive onto a roadway, you're being tracked, and you have already lost the battle. Sometimes, you don't even need to leave your home. I'm from the states so this example is from that perspective.

    Every intersection, at the very least capture your face, vehicle, direction of travel - and none of which have indications that they are recording you. When you stop for fuel, you have cameras from dozens of perspectives outside at the pumps and inside paying, watching you fuel up, get a snack. Getting back on the road, a cop passes you, and an automated license plate reader records where and when your vehicle was seen. When you enter your workplace, cameras. When you get groceries, the parking lot is littered with them, the store interior using them to track thefts, customer profiling, what items you pick up but set back down on the shelves. When you pull into your driveway, your neighbor across the street who has a ring doorbell detects you getting out of your car and notes the event. And on top of all the innocent use cases, with just a little effort, you've now been pulled into a dragnet search for an investigation because your phone was connected to the same tower as XYZ while they committed a homicide, a block away while you were getting your groceries. But now your movements for the past month are scooped up in a database, scrutinized and picked through with a magnifying glass. Looking for a reason, any reason, to nail you and hundreds of others caught up in this investigation, with anything they can find in their pursuit of the attacker. You, you are just a bonus to them.

    I don't like either, to be clear, but I'd take the one camera on someone's face vs the thousands of networked cameras you pass - and likely don't even notice - every single day. Unfortunately, the agencies and companies that installed those cameras are quite indifferent to my feelings regarding them. Funny how that works.

    Like I said, the ship has sailed.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So transformative will it prove to the human brain, the twenty-something-year-old inventors promise, that wearers will soon be not just thinking, but "vibe thinking."

    End this. Go down to the Titanic, please.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago

    Genuinely, every person who participated in creating this should be taken out to an island and dumped there, to be forgotten about.

    This is vile.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    imagine passing everything you see in life to openai api

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago

    I remember this Black Mirror episode! Dudes wife was banging someone else and he gets wicked drunk crashes his car and replays the memory over and over again for years. Good Times! 🫠

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

    This is a very interesting article. We’re walking right into the very dystopia that so many sci-fi authors repeatedly have warned us about. They were warnings, not a playbook.

    What distinguishes a panopticon isn't merely inescapable surveillance, but the fact that you don't know when you're being watched. You simply have to live with the unbearable uncertainty that, at any moment, you could be.

    Whether people realize it or not, we already live in a panopticon. Not only are there camera everywhere - on buildings, businesses, homes, streets, phones, cars, etc - but there are other sensors and mechanisms tracking things like your movement, activity, and heart rate.

    …despite a growing body of research suggesting that relying on AI models leads to critical thinking skills atrophying.

    There was a novel that predicted this decades ago. The main character was so reliant on his AR goggles that when they were stolen in a mugging he was nearly catatonic until his friends got it back.

    This is the world we are heading toward, and I don’t know what we can possibly do at this point to minimize the harm to both our environment and our species. The worst-case dystopia seems more and more inevitable by the day.

    Edit: The novel was Accelerando, by Charles Stross

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I work for a company that has decided that they want to move forward with a device that will emit a frequency that allows them to track individual cell phones which they plan to use to target people with ads.
    This is a hotel that will know where all their guests are at all times and will use it to tell them what to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Sliders, the 90s sci-fi TV show had an episode that explored similar themes with VR. Also the 2020 indie adventure game Virtua Verse also has similar VR themes dominating people's perceptions of reality to the point that some people spend their whole lives in love a robot that looks like a beautiful person when you have your headset on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    From the Wikipedia page

    a less obvious, though equally important theme is what Forster refers to as "the sin against the body." This occurs when people's intellectual refinement and spirituality advance to such a point that they become disconnected from their physical bodies and are unable to adapt to changing environments.

    After reading the synopsis and then hitting that sentence... This Forster mofo understood something deep within us that most people today have no clue about. It's like we want to disconnect from the world we live in.

    Maybe it's that our combination of self awareness and intelligence allow us to have an internal dialogue. It makes us feel like our mind a separate entity that's driving our physical body around, and isolating our minds from the messiness of the natural world lets us exist in our more pure evolved state or whatever.

    I was admittedly way more into the metaverse (ala Snow Crash, not frickin facebook) and VR concepts decades ago. And I've had some great experiences in immersive games including VR. But to flip around the line from The Matrix, "the mind cannot live without the body." We need to engage all of our senses and live in our environment, and not try to pretend like we're just another computer on the network.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Do you remember which episode? I loved sliders. I'm up for an episode that'll make me depressed about my present!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Season 4, episode 4. "Virtual Slide"

    You know what depressed me? I wanted to rewatch Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman, but the episode I loaded up first from the entire run of the show? The one where a pandemic hit their town... and this was in 2021 or 2022, right when COVID-19 was still raging and pretty much on everyone's mind. That immediately got me off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ever read The Stand by King?

    First time I read I got to around 1/4 of the way through and felt sick. Thought "jeeze, suggestible much?"

    Ended up having the flu for the first time in my life.

    Then when the new whoopie Goldberg version came out I sat down to watch it with my mom, and got so sick. Had pancreatitis. Lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    Are there glasses that scrambles other people's cameras that the rest of us could wear?

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I mean we could wear IR emitors. I imagine glasses with those or hyper reflective parts (like hi-vis vest) would both work to really mess up camera footage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Cool idea. Also, maybe create a new style in response by making rave clothing for everyday wear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I am thinking we finally make tron style clothing that lights up in that original supertight sheer leotard.
    But your idea is good too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Zenni offers ID blocking glasses. A friend has them. They look perfectly normal. Can't say how well they work but it stops Apple face ID perfectly well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Big Brother strapped to your fucking face.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    So I know what to look for in the future for people to avoid, the glasses apparently look like this:

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And putting Ray Ban on the "never buy a fucking thing from" list.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You should go up the chain and put the parent company of the parent company and all the related properties there

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EssilorLuxottica

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Ray Ban's parent company is going to have AI glasses from all of the companies they own. I was boycotting Ray Ban up until I learned that it's really fucking difficult to find prescription sunglasses big enough for my giant head that can accommodate my very strong prescription and Ray Ban had the only pair that I could find.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Thats the wayfarer model, you'll never be able to tell, theyre too common

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're missing the details:

    Regular wayfarer on the left has the small oval (sometimes chrome) accent. AI wayfarer on the right as the round black camera lenses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're going up close to every person you see with wayfarers to check the corner for a small oval? The details are too small to matter from a distance.That's what I'm trying to say.

    There will likely be other models or brands where you can't even rely on the distinction you're trying to make here.

    It's looking bleak.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    You’re going up close to every person you see with wayfarers to check the corner for a small oval? The details are too small to matter from a distance.That’s what I’m trying to say.

    No. If I'm walking up to someone intending to interact with them, that is close enough to see the lenses. Upon identifying those, I will elect instead to not interact with that person and keep on walking by.

    The details are too small to matter from a distance.That’s what I’m trying to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    As someone whose taught a fair number of undergrad classes, my nightmare scenario is a student showing up to an exam wearing one of these fucking things. When I tell them to take the damn things off, they then might protest saying they have prescription lenses and that they're the only way they can take the exam.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Can't it just be in the requirement of the exam? If they have connected glasses, they have to remove them for the duration of the exam and use them only after leaving the room. If they are spotted with them, they get disqualified instantly?

    Edit: IMHO the accessibility argument would not stand for a written exam as those glasses are often used to transcribe audio. If it's written there is nothing to transcribe thus is not required. Those glasses are also more expensive than the non connected one so economically speaking if they can afford these glasses, they sure can afford the non connected ones. If they don't have a pair of non connected glasses they have to plan ahead of the exam which typically happens weeks if not months after the beginning of the semester so it's on them to plan accordingly.

    TL;DR: forbid them in school ToS.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who would have thought that people wouldn't want to be surveilled?? What the fuck?? Why???

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Because they thought everyone knew they are already doing that.

    I mean, we pay hundreds of monies every 2-4 years for the privilege of carrying the latest version of a device that does most of this already.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Invasion of the privacy snatchers.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who would buy them in first place

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    My boss, he owns a pair and is trying to convince our chief operations manager to get pairs for the whole department so we can take pictures of our work.

    We already get a bonus on our pay stubs for having our phones available so we all find this dumb.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    This is worse than a prison. In a prison the prisoners cells are not normally under video surveillance unless the prisoner was super high risk for something.

    Even Epstein, a true high risk prisoner, didn't have cameras inside his cell, and he was allegedly on suicide watch when he was murdered by Trump's goons to try to cover up his pedo shit.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    "AI-powered". That alone should turn everyone off

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Makes me paranoid now to go out.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • My neighbor has several security cameras in front, covering the parking lot, the sidewalk in front of the building, and the unit entry doors. We live in apartments. Our doors are clustered in the same area, so anything that can see his door can also see my door and our other neighbors' doors.

    I absolutely hate it. I can't even throw the goddamn trash out without feeling watched.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Record Everything Constantly

    Which camera glasses have all-day battery life? 🤔

  • source
  • [+] -17 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    All this talk about these glasses that dont actually exist yet just boosts the value of the company so the founders can cash out. Its more marketing than product. I dont care if someone wants to walk around recording everything they see and hear they can enjoy their phone and glasses running out of battery in an hour and getting $1000 in api fees.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Camera glasses like this have existed for like a decade. Modern ones can probably run for a full work day if all they do is record.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Uh no. I'll use the new Meta glasses as a comparison, which have up to 4 hours battery life and dont even record 24/7 and are still more bulky than the glasses in this article (the glasses in this article arent real but still). The meta glasses dont constantly run AI like the glasses in this article either. There are no glasses that constantly record and run AI on those recordings that run for more than a few hours.

    People are getting mad as fuck over a concept from two grad students and their outrage is being farmed so they can sell their startup at a higher price.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    glasses that constantly record and run AI

    if all they do is record

    Read boii

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Why would i care about that completely irrelevant statement? No one is talking about glasses that "only record" and the glasses that can only record dont do it 24/7 and dont last over 4hr so you arent even correct or adding anything. If glasses like this have been around for a decade then why are we getting mad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Because people are using them to violate other peoples privacy NOW and its getting more popular. Covertly recording conversations, recording people in bathrooms, changing rooms, during medical checkups, etc. The AI is just something that makes it slightly worse, but the recording is the actual problem. And as this whole post is about privacy concerns, the recording is all that matters. And even if its "just" recordings, you can feed them to the AI after you get home to get the same level of surveillance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think we're talking past each other.

    I'm pointing out that these people are getting mad at marketing for glasses that dont exist and you're bringing up valid privacy concerns with already existing products that can do similar things.

    You are right that always on recording glasses are a terrible thing. I just dont care that people are getting "mad" over the advertising of these glasses in the article. Glasses that can do this kind of invasive recording has been around for ages and are very niche so this specific product gives me no reason to get mad. I'd get mad if this was popular a and selling out everywhere but thats not the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago

    That's why I will wait until buying them.

  • source