I'd say they shouldn't be, but either way, they sure as heck don't normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients.

The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google... etc.. are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn't been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.

The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.

That's the thing though, it's multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don't just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of "accidental" system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.

I get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it... or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going "I bought this but realize I don't know how to use it, and it's too much work, do you want it".

It's because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.

I imagine it's just the added difficulty that the dollar dispensers are finicky and break down enough when dealing with small amounts of money. There's a reason why coke machines themselves are shifting more to card payments now that everythings over a few dollars. Plus being outdoors overnight is kind of a security nightmare as they don't want people taking crowbars to them. hoping for cash (even when there's no cash in them)

yeah I saw that on another post... and did look it up myself, in the US they can be sold, but legally they cannot include the word cigarette anywhere in the labeling or packaging, on amazon they do indeed put it in the title of the listing, which is against the law, but not particularly well enforced, the packages themselves though you can also see clearly they don't use the word cigarette for exactly that reason.

It's interesting because, in the US technically they aren't allowed to be labeled Cigarettes (in most countries they are outright illegal), Just did check amazon, and you can see the actual packaging just says "bubble gum", or "candy". Though I think the amazon listing using the word, may actually not be within the law.

Oh, like candy cigarettes and big league chew.

Yeah... Which was also a bad idea... of which most of the world won't accept in the modern age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_cigarette#Sales_laws

Big league chew, I guess was a bit more on the fence because it's less obvious and it avoids any words that directly link it to chewing tobacco.

well my thought is, more the botnet side of it, IE pushing less on individual machines, but more on massive distribution. IE it not needing one computer strong enough to run it, IE expecting 90% of the machines it infects to be average consumer PCs, but making more use out of 1000 systems that can handle 1% each, rather than 1 computer that handles 100%, however yeah I do suppose also allowing it to do the bulk of the work when the computer is likely unused etc... and I don't know much on the concept of communication etc... IE most major botnets were crushed by a command center being shut down. Imagining a different form that has, basically makes C&C's on the fly.

The same way Windows is “fixing bugs” with AI? Large volumes of dubiously tested code is never a good idea

I think the point is the bugs are being FOUND with AI. Not fixed with AI.

It's basically the same concept as open source in general. IE the average layman hears open source and they think "oh so every moron, malicious person etc... can add his own back doors into the code", of course not, the official version is gated and reviewed. What's happening is AI is basically serving as millions of idiots looking through the code for security flaws, and it's finding them. Which then means the humans fixing it need to go into overdrive to fix them before they become zero days.

I think there are physical and economic limits. Neural networks may improve in software, but they still need more and more hardware, at some point that hardware resource curve is going to be to steep to climb at the current rate.

It's true, but think like the crypto miner bugs. I don't know enough on AI's working, but is a distributed computing LLM possible, or is the need for super close super low latency between nodes eliminate the risk of a distributed computing, learn as it travels botnet powered AI worm, that continues evolving even if it's home is shut down.