6 ms·
While I'd like to agree with you, and do in some cases, there are many cases where this just isn't a feasible approach. For example, a peer coworker has a pair
by hightrix 7mo ago
While I'd like to agree with you, and do in some cases, there are many cases where this just isn't a feasible approach. For example, a peer coworker has a pair of these. I just don't interact with her while she is wearing them. If my boss were to get a pair there is no way I can justify slapping them off his face.
- miki123211 7mo agoThey're incredibly popular in the blind community, and for good reason. I think even the political activists will be extremely divided on this one. You have privacy on one hand, accessibility and a genuinely life-changing technology on the other.
- tartoran 7mo agoDo blind people not care about data privacy? Most likely they do and should ask for good TOS now while still possible.
- lynx97 7mo agoBlind user here. Reality is, we are so disadvantaged in this world that we will gladly accept any tool that is useful. Almost nobody would ever read the TOS. Its a bit like with cars... Sure, there are some urban exceptions, but truth is, if you ask someone to give up their car, they will laugh you out the door.
- tartoran 7mo agoI'm sorry that you are in this predicament. Many rely on these tools. When something finally works, few are going to walk away because of a long terms of service most of us will never read. That doesn't mean you don't care about privacy though, it just means you are forced into a tradeoff. With AI glasses like the ones Meta is pushing, the device is not just helping you. It is recording. Photos and videos can be sent back to company servers. Reports show that human reviewers can see very private footage users never meant to share. That includes sensitive personal moments. The device is basically an always-on camera tied to a giant data company. If you depend on that device to understand the world, that makes you more vulnerable, not less. If ads, errors, or AI hallucinations start shaping what you hear about your surroundings, that affects your only channel of perception. If your daily life is constantly captured and stored, that affects your autonomy. So yes, many of us will still use the tech. But that is exactly why pushing for strong, clear privacy terms now matters. Accessibility should not mean giving up control over your own life.
- lynx97 7mo agoSure, every interaction in society is a tradeoff... However, I must destroy your dreams. Being disabled almost always means surrendering control over your own life to others. Or, better phrased, constantly fighting to keep control from being taken away from you by external, mostly well meaning, forces. But I get it, really. No need to ELI5. I hope the "you" in your explanation was rethorical... because if it wasn't, I definitely feel talked down to. I read the article we are commenting. I am well aware about the problem of hallucination, especially when image LLMs get used to describe the world. I have even done my own empirical tests to get a feel of the extent of the problem. All my comment was trying to say is, that when it comes to assistive technologies which actually provide value, idiology and privacy concerns pretty much go out the window very very fast, much faster then the average HN reader might assume. That is why Meta glasses are very popular amongst the visually impaired. Or do you seriously suggest they (we) are all so naiv as to not know what kind of deal we just struck with the devil? Full disclosure: I don't own Meta glasses (yet), but I know some users and observe rollout amongst assistive technology resellers.
- numpad0 7mo agoHigh end phones these days run smaller LLMs sorta fine.
- samtheprogram 7mo agoAnd?
- deaux 7mo agoThey shouldn't be divided, they should (wo)man up and say the thing they well know out loud: the harms to society are not worth it, the societal consequences of Meta being in control of this are severe and will, as always, hurt the weak and poor the most. Unfortunately the blind community will have to wait a few more years to get a local version, which is guaranteed to appear with how things are going.
- quantified 7mo agoYeah, this could be the "lost dog" approach that Ring was trying. I feel for the blind. But in weighing their concern against everyone else's... they should get a different supplier.
- tdeck 7mo agoI don't have much of an objection to Blind people wearing these, but there are all kinds of things that are OK to do with a disability that aren't OK to do if you don't need special accomodation.
- lynx97 7mo agoAccessibility never really prevented anyone to do shit which breaks it. Remember CAPTCHAs? (and I am blind, I know what I am talking about)
- tartoran 7mo agoYou could always say you're not comfortable being processed and uploaded to Meta. If they wear the glasses at their desks replacing their screen , that's fair game.
- nakedpwr 7mo agoLololol that's really good.
- lacunary 7mo agodoes your workplace allow recording coworkers without their permission?
- hightrix 7mo agoIn the office? No. But at lunch or outside of the office is not controlled by work place policy.
- dylan604 7mo agoI don't think you could justify slapping them off of anybody's face unless you really just like to assault people.
- deaux 7mo agoStreaming someone live to Meta, potentially the most evil company in the world (not "per employee" but by "damage done per day") without their permission, especially in a place where this is not at a expected - like an office rather than a football stadium - is great justification. It ticks all the boxes.
- dylan604 7mo agoYeah, it ticks all of the boxes that HR loves to tick before firing you with cause
- DrewADesign 7mo agoIt’s also at least simple assault, and quite possibly aggravated assault on someone that has a sophisticated camera pointed at your face that’s sending biometrics, images, and probably video back to one of the worst privacy offenders on the planet. Feels great to say it. Would feel great to do it. Morally defensible to anyone that knows anything about privacy if the person isn’t low-vision or something. In reality, a terrifically stupid idea.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- diath 7mo ago[flagged]
- juleiie 7mo agoThis is trolling at best. If you touch a wrong person, you will not live to tell the tale. People aren’t some NPC in a video game my friend. This isn’t a movie. Even I, average looking girl, walk with a knife everywhere and I am trained how to use it to kill, it’s muscle memory. In US, a lot of people stroll around with guns.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- diath 7mo ago> Even I, average looking girl, walk with a knife everywhere and I am trained how to use it to kill I can guarantee you that if you ever end up getting sucker punched by an adult male, you will at best get dazed and not know what's going on, and at worst knocked out cold. The knife is giving you a false illusion of safety. It would only ever be really effective if you were the attacker that pulled out the knife on a victim with the intention to inflict harm. The first to strike usually comes out on top.
- __MatrixMan__ 7mo agoI would acquit
- listeria 7mo agoHave you tried bringing it up with HR? If you explain why you try to avoid her while she's wearing them, they might ask her to stop wearing them to work. Meta's own guidelines[1] say that you should "Power off in private spaces." You can't always tell if you're being recorded since they can be tampered with to disable the LED. And from what I gather, the LED only serves to indicate of video recording, and not necessarily audio. [1]: https://www.meta.com/ai-glasses/privacy/ https://www.meta.com/ai-glasses/privacy/