pj_mukh

What’s the top of the funnel for getting subscriptions?

They have to notify me of the EULA change. Like I said there’s an army of journalists watching Zuckerberg type every key on his keyboard right now.

I’m not feeling bad for him, but I’m also betting he’s not about to do something stupid like that.

What database is that? If your claim is to not post it on Facebook, I agree.

“There has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists.”

This was my only claim. Which remains true. Videos off of the glasses voluntarily posted on FB is no different than iPhone videos posted on FB so it has nothing to do with the glasses themselves. If your claim is “posting videos in FB is a bad idea”, I agree, I don’t do that but again, that has nothing to do with the glasses either. It doesn’t make posting easier or force me to opt-out of automatically posting or anything silly like that

And you can’t do any “facial recognition” against Facebook either. I’m glad meta figured out that was a pointless bad idea.

Is the claim that meta uses publicly posted videos as a source for ads? The meta glasses are irrelevant to that fact.

I’d be happy to join some kind of rage-off at metas general practices but my claim was specifically just about the glasses data

There is no Rayban data in Facebook. There is no connection and no way to use one with the other (other than voluntarily posting your own video to FB/Insta)

FWIW, I hope they get sued to the high heavens for allowing these ads, but this has nothing to do with the issue laid out above.

"your admitted use case is filming people who are unaware you are filming"

For the record the "people" here is my 2 year old. And I'm the one making a bad faith argument?

>> what you're saying is "I like the knives because I can cut things" it just happens the "things" in this case are (mostly) your vegetables.

Again, I'm not saying this out of some bad faith, I just think this argument doesn't work the way you think it does. We actually have no data as to what its most commonly used for, apart from the headlines. Anecdotally, all my friends who have them use it for the exact same reason I do.

Yes, That’s an opt-in feature. You can record all the footage you want and keep it on your phone, and they won’t see any of it, unless you ask for it be analyzed by their AI (as laid out in the article you shared). Of course if there was evidence they’re doing it when I haven’t opted in I’d dump em.

It’s made clear during onboarding, but I’m sure it could be better.

How would it be monetized? And if it has been, where can I buy this? And if you can't doesn't that make you question your assumptions?

That's..exactly how the Meta glasses work :/, and there has been no evidence otherwise so far.

Would love to see it if I missed this.

"put their faces in a recognition database"

Just so we're clear and can read past the headlines. This database doesn't exist and there has been no evidence that a database built off of meta ray-bans exists. And I would obviously dump the ray bans if this was actually a thing.

>>like the creation of virtual CSAM with them

You think Meta is going to create CSAM with my data?

Like I would dump them for using my data for analytics without my permission, but we probably should recalibrate our expectations a bit here.

If you gave me a non-Meta glass like this, I'd happily switch, and FWIW, if I saw some evidence of Meta doing something untoward with this data, I'd dump them immediately. An unaction'd patent and breathless headlines over "creep glasses" is all I have to go on for now.

"in addition to normalizing the idea that it's okay for dad to be recording them without their awareness"

They're 2 man. You're at the point of questioning whether parents should be allowed to film their infants. Do we think we're off the deep end a bit?

Which is true for all parents recording all kids with every kind of camera, also in a way that is totally un-actionable.

Good faith question:

If your worry is, "I don't know you're recording", what did you do with that information when someone was using a digital camera to video record their kids 15 years ago, with you in the background?

P.S: if your answer is just "you could be a creep", I totally empathize, but this is for the situation where I am actually just a parent.

>> "The glass only seems to appeal to a certain type of people anyway."

What type of people is that? I am just a dad who has them and films his kids doing cute things without making the phone camera an ever present intrusion while outdoors.

It's fine, it's Meta, suspicion is warranted, but I'm hoping it can be moderated and directed. People like me are kind of left out right now in what seems to be a runaway narrative.

P.S: Would love a suggestion that doesn't involve angrily telling parents to not take pictures of their kids as an alternative. It sucks that I have to explain that this will be happening anyway.

That's my point. Cancer researchers are currently filling out Trial and Grant applications instead of working on what they do best.

P.S: I am not saying applications will go away but LLM's are clearly massively effective here at the rote parts of it all.

> The thing that will work is actually curing cancer.

I think typical bubble behavior the leaders have set up the whole promise to fail. Everyone is expecting some faux super intelligence to come and find a cancer solution everyone else missed. However, it is just as likely that vanilla current LLM's will create enough of a productivity boost for back office automations in research heavy hospitals to create the space for regular humans to create these breakthroughs, but LLM's won't be able to claim that for themselves and inevitably “fail”.

>> "No one said the amount of radiology work would decrease"

Literally the Godfather of AI did [1]. The rest is pablum, Radiologists do far more than just protect against liability. I hope you never find out why they are so critical to vast number of patients getting the worst news of their lifetime. As OP lays out, life and its professions is just not as simple as these narratives would like us to think, and we keep backfilling reasons for why all dooming and glooming consistently comes up wrong. Just selective memory writ large to keep the literal infinite scroll of doom going.

[1]: https://www.auntminnieeurope.com/imaging-informatics/advance...

>>fully replaceable by AI

I am trying to fathom a more catastrophic failure in communications than the lab CEO's using this narrative. The reality ends up being closer to Radiology jobs [1], but we're never able to fully realize this because the press is running around like headless chickens and unloading the fear on a public that then reaches for any leverage they can get (see: Datacenter NIMBY-ism).

Any short term FOMO valuation bumps they got from this narrative has to now be liquidated into paying premium for server racks in a warehouse.

Reminder folks: There is no evidence that AI is not normal technology [2]

[1]: https://www.apollo.com/wealth/insights-news/insights/daily-s...

[2]: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/ai-as-normal-technology

The title implies that there are collision check systems that don’t use point clouds (or that robotics has moved onto something else)? Is that true or did the author just mean personally?

The last thing I'd wanna replicate is any kind of blanket statement like that.

I dont know why we're not looking at the obvious answer here. Encrypt the data behind warrants and require narrow parameters for the warrants. It will require state-by-state implementation + legal changes sure but it's the safest, simplest solution.

P.S: Anyone know how London has solved this problem?

All of this has been true for the last 50 years at least? What changed?

>>Unless the capability to create high productivity enabling AI is in the hands of every person,

The capability is definitely there, the agency or education probably isn't. Those are both personal and infrastructure choices. None of those are tech issues.

Most people predict Citizens United will cause some kind of upheaval eventually. Maybe AI will be the thing that finally causes it, but if you ban that, it'll just be something else, proving my point its not a natural result of the technology but more a matter of all that is happened so far.

r/overemployed disagrees. there is real wealth in productivity gains.

Could capital owners try to capture it all? I'm sure. But it's not a natural result of the technology, it's just whether we choose to allow it or not.

Good faith counter point

>>” to scale your wealth with other people's labor”

Or you can scale your labor with openly available AI?

I’m sorry this wasn’t obvious in my comment but I meant AI engineers not software engineers (and not the AI capital owners either)

Either way, I empathize with your anxiety but posit that its primarily driven by techs original sin: the algorithmic feed and the resultant 24hour news cycle. I think the truth will be a lot more boring (mass upskilling and reskilling) but those narratives aren’t easily sold on the feeds.

AI is normal technology but it’s probably the largest upgrade to productivity and massively deflationary especially as it hits atoms and not just bits. That is actually extremely exciting.

>> If it's boring technology, why be excited about it?

Surely, on Hackernews, we know we can get excited about technology that maybe boring to most of the public. And in this case, I think the technology has wide-ranging productivity enhancing applications

Maybe your question is about why the tech billionaires are trying to get the public so excited about it? Totally different question.

>> It will still be same 8 hours of doing something

Yes but your 8 hours of work will serve more people. Will you see the fruits of that productivity gain? Very good question, but again, orthogonal to the usefulness of the technology.