Oh look a flock competitor
Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
421–430 of 870 posts
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#422Is anyone here actually surprised Meta is recording and reviewing their content? Vote with your dollars people.
There's plenty of people that don't own these smart glasses, as far as i know it's still only early adopters using them but i guess i could be wrong. The nice thing is you actually can vote with your feet here because there's no network effects, whereas there's tons of people that are stuck being on facebook or instagram because of everyone else that's on there.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
>hard to believe even Meta would do this intentionally). Hahahahahahahaha ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at harvard ZUCK: just ask ZUCK: i have over 4000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns FRIEND: what!? how’d you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don’t know why ZUCK: they “trust me” ZUCK: dumb fucks Actual quote, BTW [1]. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face…
As much as this is a damning quote, it is perhaps also damning that any time someone wants to smear zuck they have to reach 20 years into the past.
Learning to choose your words more wisely as you age does not necessarily indicate your underlying value system has evolved.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#424i mean theres kind of no way around it. how else are you gonna get the training data you need? the only way to bootstrap ai is to tag the data with bio-ai first (humans). different companies 'launder' it differently: with voice, it was done by "accidental" voice assistant activations. i guess with glasses, maybe there will be less window dressing this time. after all, it is clearly pitched to see what you see, at all…
Lol! The no way round it defense. I'll have to remember that.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm amazed you can't see the difference. Body cam - used to protect the police and people being policed in a potentially hot conflict. Recording is scoped to these specific interactions that rarely occur for most people. Doorbell cam - highly controversial. See response to dog-finding superbowl ad. Body cam wore on face - Mass surveillance in potentially every conceivable social context. Data owned by Meta, a company…
Eh, doorbell cams aren’t that controversial (ad aside). A lot of people have them already, both from ring (with the concomitant privacy issues) or from other providers (with different but similar issues). They’re controversial on hacker news but I don’t think people in the “real world” care all that much. How that connects to the meta glasses is certainly up for debate —- the doorbells provide a lot of value to the u…
I would say that people outside of tech aren't aware of the implications and potential use of the data.
Once people realize, they begin to reject. This is why I mentioned the superbowl ad and it shouldn't be waved away as an outlier.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#426I really want to make a fake PSA that suggests anyone wearing the Meta glasses is probably a pervert and should be proactively avoided/shunned. This product cannot be allowed to exist in the type of world I want to live in. The power structure wants these to succeed in the market for so many horrific reasons and it will require some serious societal muscle to reject them.
At this point Meta has probably the largest collection of illegal videos of underage kids in private situations on the planet. Maybe followed closely by Google with their cams that record everything even if you think they're not. If there was any concern for kids, the FBI should be stopping them right now and taking the executives to jail.
That seems a bit like accusing the post office of letting you send and receive banned books?
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
What in Meta's history would lead you to give them the benefit of the doubt like this?
Perhaps I'm ignorant. I know some of the criticism of Meta: many people don't like the way their products are optimized for engagement. I've heard about their weird AI bots interacting on their platform as if they were people. And I know people of all political stripes have had complaints about content moderation and their algorithm. But all of that is within the bounds of the law and their terms of service. None of…
Please disclose your affiliations
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#428i mean theres kind of no way around it. how else are you gonna get the training data you need? the only way to bootstrap ai is to tag the data with bio-ai first (humans). different companies 'launder' it differently: with voice, it was done by "accidental" voice assistant activations. i guess with glasses, maybe there will be less window dressing this time. after all, it is clearly pitched to see what you see, at all…
There are lots of ways around it, like adding a transparent “training mode” that a user can enable with consent, legitimately purchasing training data, etc. The root cause is that meta didn’t want to pay the fair market value for those videos and just stole them from its users by burying it in TOS. If they were honest about their intentions most people would say no or demand payment for providing something of value.
That would be good. A YC company is paying people to do just this. You know the data is being uploaded, so you can avoid e.g. your kids coming into frame.
Really it should just be in the UI. Click Upload this and get 10c/minute or whatever for the video. Choose what you upload. That'd be closer in effect to using social media.
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wayfarer style was always bulky, they have been a fashion staple for decades at this point. The Meta gen2 ones aren't really that noticeably larger than "normal" Wayfarers - probably why they latched on this style as it gives the most room to stuff electronics while remaining similar sized to the original Wayfarer design. I still see folks wearing Wayfarers almost every single day, and have owned various (non-Met…
As an aside, it’s crazy that Ray Ban would hitch their most valuable brand cachet to such a controversial wagon
Meta have a minority stake in Ray Ban and Oakley's parent company, EssilorLuxottica. The investment was largely to support development of future AI glasses. It does make me a little sad to see Wayfarers end up this way too.
> https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/meta-takes-around-3-sta...
Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns
#430I'll confess that I like my Meta Ray Ban glasses: I love using them to listen to podcasts at the pool/beach, while riding my bike, and it's cool to snap a quick picture of my kids without pulling out my phone. I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images. My settings are: - [OFF] "Share additional data" - Sh…
https://zuckmail.vercel.app/t/harvard-dumb-fucks
wow, what a cnut