Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

svd.se

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 870 posts

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#751

Post by WD-42 »

soared wrote: post #407
WD-42 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gen Z doesn’t seem to carry the millennial “making the world a better place” sensibility. They are all hustle culture, all the time. While I appreciate a lot of their culture this is the aspect that makes me nervous about the future.

The person responsible for high level corporate strategy at Meta is surely not Gen Z but boomer or millennial.

That person is surely a lizard person, generation or wider societal norms don't matter.

The point I was trying to make is it's becoming easier to staff companies with dubious moral standings.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#752

Post by yard2010 »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #639
zmmmmm wrote: post #194

I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shi…

I'm going to guess that people are intentionally recording themselves having sex, assuming that they are creating a local recording that is not sent to Meta. Does the light mean "camera is recording" or "cloud services are involved"?

Follow up question - can we jailbreak this device and install an open source alternative that makes meta irrelevant?

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#753

Post by twodave »

palata wrote: post #689
twodave wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought I stated my position pretty clearly. This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument. Whether you agree or disagree with the thesis, I think we can all agree that’s a stupid way to make the point. But perhaps you just aren’t willing to have a genuine discussion.

You are the one nitpicking about the argument ("I agree with your point, but I will just complain about your example"), so don't be surprised if you get answers :-). > This is like saying, “We should ban guns!” And then use a successful self-defense case as a supporting argument. Not quite, no. It is saying "If even those people who benefit from their national security can be tracked by an actor that does not own the…

Ok, this is a good point I hadn’t thought of. Thank you.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#755

Post by losvedir »

cmiles74 wrote: post #724
losvedir wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I'm confused trying to map what the article is saying to what's happening at a technical level. For example, obviously it's not doing on-device inference, so it's unsurprising that it won't work without a network connection, but this is totally distinct from your recordings ending up getting labeled. It talks about being able to opt into that, which is one thing. But I guess I don't understand if you don't op…

My reading was that as soon as you enable the "AI" functionality you are opted into having your recordings labeled. "But for the AI assistant to function, voice, text, image and sometimes video must be processed and may be shared onwards. This data processing is done automatically and cannot be turned off."

Right, that's the section I was confused by because it was in the context of an experiment trying to use the AI stuff without an Internet connection, which obviously won't work. The article is using the "shared onwards" terminology to refer to at least inference. But the inference part is uninteresting to me, and the data labeling is. The article doesn't really separate those out.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#756

Post by Integrape »

edgyquant wrote: post #710
ElProlactin wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "smearing" to use Zuckerberg's own words in a discussion of his character, and this is far from the only example of things he's done or said in the past 20 years that would lead a reasonable person to call into question his moral fiber. It remains, however, a popular point of reference because: 1. It's fast and easy to read and digest. 2. The blunt language leaves little room for speculation about his feelin…

It doesn’t though, no one is the same person they were 20 years ago and every young person is makes a ton of mistakes

You're right, he's much worse now.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#757

Post by pyrale »

zmmmmm wrote: post #194

I do think it's completely unacceptable if Meta makes the glasses unable to be used for routine functions without (a) other humans reviewing your private content and (b) AI training on your content. There needs to be total transparency to people when this is happening - these are absolutes. But I'm a bit confused by the article because it describes things that seem really unlikely given how the glasses work. They shi…

It is also completely unacceptable to capture the public space without oversight and consent from third parties. If glass users are fine with that, why wouldn’t they accept it for themselves?

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#758

Post by ElProlactin »

edgyquant wrote: post #710
ElProlactin wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "smearing" to use Zuckerberg's own words in a discussion of his character, and this is far from the only example of things he's done or said in the past 20 years that would lead a reasonable person to call into question his moral fiber. It remains, however, a popular point of reference because: 1. It's fast and easy to read and digest. 2. The blunt language leaves little room for speculation about his feelin…

It doesn’t though, no one is the same person they were 20 years ago and every young person is makes a ton of mistakes

I think his actions speak for themselves. Facebook, effectively completely controlled by Zuckerberg, has consistently taken actions that erode privacy and degrade mental health.

And no, not every young person has the attitude that Zuckerberg demonstrated in his "dumb f...s" comment. If my son or daughter was behaving like that in their late teens/early twenties I would be ashamed and feel like a failure as a parent.

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#759

Post by ElProlactin »

Gooblebrai wrote: post #714
ElProlactin wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "smearing" to use Zuckerberg's own words in a discussion of his character, and this is far from the only example of things he's done or said in the past 20 years that would lead a reasonable person to call into question his moral fiber. It remains, however, a popular point of reference because: 1. It's fast and easy to read and digest. 2. The blunt language leaves little room for speculation about his feelin…

> his pre-wealth behavior gives insight into who he really is "No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." Not defending Zuck but it reflects a rigid mindset to assume that people cannot change.

People can change but based on Facebook's actions vis-a-vis privacy, mental health, etc. there's little evidence that Zuckerberg has gone from treating his users like "dumb f...." to treating them like human beings.

If we're going to talk about quotes, here's one: "money amplifies who you are".

Re: Meta’s AI smart glasses and data privacy concerns

#760

Post by DonHopkins »

rationalist wrote: post #209
unselect5917 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when facebook was busted playing silent audio so the app could stay active in the background? I honestly don't think there's a company I trust less than facebook/meta. And it's because the rot is at the top, and has always been there.

No. I did a search and found this though: https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/22/facebook-says-it-fixed-a-b... Supposedly it was a bug, but with Facebook, who knows.

>The other issue, that Facebook was running a silent audio stream in the background, is also called out. Grant says this was unintentional, and that it was not being used to keep the app alive — yet it did as a byproduct of the bug.

How much issue tracking and scrum management and engineering work and code review and testing and deployment and maintenance went into accidentally streaming silent audio that you only stop doing after you got caught and have to claim all that successfully tested and deployed work was unintentional, without ever explaining the actual innocuous purpose of streaming silent audio and paying for all that extra bandwidth?

Post reply on HN