Now we need a device that detects Meta Glasses and makes us invisible to them. I know this is a losing battle and it’s just inevitable over time but I don’t like having information provided to someone about me without my consent. With enough adoption, at some point we would all just need to have our own glasses to even the field.
high powered infrared leds at full blast? Just spitballing here
Imma just wait till a better brand makes em.
I’d use it solely for cooking recipes so I don’t go “ah have to flip page….washes hands… oh shoot I forgot the amount of that ingredient… washes hands…”
The cycle never ends
Apps like Crouton have a hands free mode which allows you step through the instructions by winking (right = forward, left = back).
Or you can go old school and just have it on a piece of paper sitting right there… you could even reuse it… maybe put it away some place safe so it doesn’t get lost with all the other ones you have decided to keep…
I cannot emphasize enough how unwilling I’d be to interact with someone that has these.
I was watching a random short with a guy what I’m assuming is one of these. I didn’t hear much of what he said, because I was distracted by the lenses the whole time. It was impossible to ignore as the light catches the lenses as he moves his head around.
Good thing that the kind of person who would were these in public doesn’t interact with others much anyway
Worst part with Meta Quest is it seems you have to sign up as a dev and give them a credit card in order to sideload (a.k.a., install stuff on the device you purchased). So, you can shell out hundreds for one of their devices and the device and all your data are belong to Meta. I assume it’s the same deal with these glasses. Zuck off, Zuck.🖕
I got a voucher for a free pair of meta glasses. I don’t want to order them. I’d need a meta account.
Wife is bugging me to order and resell and I want zero part of it.
throwaway account is an option?
I might try that.
Not to be rude. But tell the wife to fuck off. Fuck Zuck and Fuck Meta.
Cool… now everyone can be a part of their respective surveillance states. While Meta makes a buck on selling your feed to governments and law enforcement.
And serve ads directly in your eyeballs
There’s new glassholes?
All I need is a nu-metal revival and we’re back in 2008 baby.
Meh
For me at least, the killer feature is going to be tagging faces with names. Face blindness sucks.
Edit: For the downvoters, in case you’re unaware, I’m talking about a real life disability.
Face blindness, or prosopagnosia, is a condition where individuals cannot recognize familiar faces, including their own, despite having normal vision and intellectual function. It can be congenital (present from birth), developmental, or acquired due to brain damage from injury, stroke, or disease. People with prosopagnosia rely on other cues like voice, hair, or clothing to identify people.
I have this, and I cannot stress enough how much this use case is not worth being recorded and tracked in public against my consent
There’s no reason it has to be one or the other, you’ve created a false dilemma. It’s perfectly possible to have the feature operate locally without recording / tracking.
There’s no reason it has to be one or the other, you’ve created a false dilemma
Well, there is a reason, specific to these glasses. The reason is Meta.
If someone tells me they trust Meta not to break the law or violate their privacy, I assume they haven’t been paying attention to Meta in the news.
It’s not beyond the realm of possibility that we could use the hardware with 3rd party software. With the Quest line of VR headsets, Meta was pretty open to letting devs mess with the hardware. At least during the time I was using one.
Not a false dilemma at all. I’m not comfortable with being recorded onto some rando’s hard drive either. It’s still recording and tracking me against my consent.
Still a false dilemma. Recording you against your wishes is already against the law in some countries, and not required for the feature to actually function.
How does facial recognition work without recording the faces it’s supposed to recognise?
Only acquaintances with your permission would have entered your face into their local database. Beyond that, checking faces against what’s stored in the database does not require recording, hence you should not be in any randos database.
That’s a very good and respectful way of solving the issue, thank you for sharing!
And that’s also the main reason I don’t want these to exist. I don’t want to be identified by random people, and I especially don’t want police to have access to something like this. People I spend time with know who I am, and I’m fine missing out on random same place/same time coincidences with people I knew from high school or something.
I’d want them to use a local database that you’ve created. After you’ve met someone, the glasses could be like “remember this person?” and you could choose to save them or not, or something like that.
Yes. I’m all for an open specification, local only version of this.
But I don’t think Meta releasing a set of smart glasses leaves anyone (other than possibly Zuckerberg) better off.
One could argue that without Meta’s investments into the technology, we might never get an open specification at all. With something like Valetudo, it wouldn’t exist without the privacy nightmare that is off-the-shelf robot vacuums.
Its meta so they’ll get their hands on that data the way peoples numbers end up in metas hands despite not having a Facebook account because people gave the app permission to contacts.
I’m not talking about a Meta made pair of glasses. I would never buy those due to the privacy issues. I’m talking about a potential pair of glasses that are open source, or at least privacy focused, and don’t phone home.
Average people will have it phone home for convenience. Just how things play out. I think the tech is cool, but not looking forward to how it’ll be utilized in the end.
Yeah, not looking forwards to being in Meta (or any other massive company)'s database or whatever when a friend or family member wears one of these.
Like VR, meta’s will probably be the best priced and have the best tech on top of it for the price, so end up getting the most market share too.
Prosopagnosia, also known as face blindness, is a cognitive disorder of face perception in which the ability to recognize familiar faces, including one’s own face, is impaired, while other aspects of visual processing and intellectual functioning remain intact.
I’m talking about recognising people I’ve met and know.
I don’t see how that could realistically happen without whichever company is behind the glasses taking all that juicy biometric data for themselves though.
It’s up to the govts to protect the rights of the people. If you’re in the US, you’re already on the verge of losing all rights anyway. For the rest of the world, there’s no reason to think we couldn’t regulate it in a reasonably privacy-friendly way. Local face tagging and recognition could work without cloud access, so that you’d only have access to information you keyed in yourself about somebody.
For the rest of the world, there’s no reason to think we couldn’t regulate it in a reasonably privacy-friendly way.
You’re totally right in principle.
But the conversation for this pair of glasses is different, because of Meta.
If anyone believes that Meta obeys their local laws, please refer them my way for a pyramid business opportunity…(I believe I could easily rip them off, because I believe they are suckers.)
The EU has proven very willing to levy increasingly large fines against the tech giants until they behave.
You act like America is the only place in the world where tech is being used for mass surveillance.
Your own governments are doing it to you too, whether or not it’s legal.
Wake up, they don’t give a single fuck about you.
Sure. My point is that same technology can and will be used to violate peoples’ privacy, and in some cases could create dangerous situations (e.g. domestic violence victim being recognized by their attacker).
(e.g. domestic violence victim being recognized by their attacker)
Not sure how or why the attacker wouldn’t be able to recognise them normally.
My point is that same technology can and will be used to violate peoples’ privacy
Every technology can be used to do shitty stuff, and in most cases has been. It’s up to the govts to protect the rights of the people. If you’re in the US, you’re already on the verge of losing all rights anyway. For the rest of the world, there’s no reason to think we couldn’t regulate it in a reasonably privacy-friendly way. Local face tagging and recognition could work without cloud access, so that you’d only have access to information you keyed in yourself about somebody.
I don’t have face blindness, but I can’t remember names for the fucking life of me.
Yup, can’t wait to be tracked without my consent everywhere I go because of other people that want to pay money to become employed for free by private and government companies.
Way to belittle people with disabilities. In case you’re unaware, I’m talking about a real condition.
Prosopagnosia, also known as face blindness, is a cognitive disorder of face perception in which the ability to recognize familiar faces, including one’s own face, is impaired, while other aspects of visual processing and intellectual functioning remain intact.
I learned about this recently in a anime!
The Apothecary Diaries - A main character has this disability.
This reminds me of Peacemaker, a guy claiming to be ‘bird blind’. Hilarious bit
Tim Meadows was a great addition to season 2
I knew it would be fun as soon as I saw him. Love Tim
deleted by creator
These glasses are actually insanely cool. I’d pay so much for an open source pair and the band.
It sucks that no matter what cool new hardware meta comes out with will always be ruined by them stuffing in “meta integration”.
They certainly are, but they’re also a bit dystopic. I don’t want random people looking up stats about my online presence, and I certainly don’t want the police doing that either.
I can see tons of cool applications, but also tons of ethical issues.
Seriously, an open source version would be awesome. You could connect it to your own server running whatever local models you want without needing to worry about that audio/video being processed by some large corporation willing to sell you out along with your data.
An open source smart glasses platform would be a much better direction.
But that only provides security assurances for the wearer of the glasses. Anyone else interacting with them doesn’t know how they are configured, and what is being recorded and/or shared.
Agreed, I’d totally buy a Meta Quest as well if they didn’t zuck up all their devices with spyware that can’t be removed.
It would be really nice if every country would enact digital privacy laws so that Meta’s business model was just forced to be better. They genuinely have some of the best and most accessible VR/AR hardware available.
It would of course be nicer if a more ethical competitor stepped up in a serious way but no one seems that interested. It’s interesting that the vast majority of Meta’s business model is being extremely good at copying or buying out competitors but with VR they’re basically the only ones actually sinking serious money into making it a thing.
most people do not generally wear glasses
I don’t know about other countries but about two thirds of Americans wear glasses. A good number of them will be older adults with age-related long-sightedness for which they may only wear reading glasses, but this is a basic mistake.
…but this is a basic mistake.
They just fell prey to one of the classic blunders!
The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a septuagenarian when blindness is on the line!
I never thought I’d hear someone mentioning the Bosnian Ape Society, on Lemmy.
There are also plenty of people who wear glasses who don’t need them. It’s weird to act like Plano lenses don’t exist.
Lauren Boebert. She thinks they make her look smartish.
I sorta do, too, but in a specific way. I don’t strictly need glasses. In my late 20s, distant objects starting getting a little fuzzy, but not enough that driving was a problem. I’m in my early 40s now, and my prescription is basically the same as what I got back then. I’m sure that will start to change in my mid 40s (the muscle that controls your eye lens tends to weaken by then), but I basically spent all my genetic lottery points on my eyes.
Anyway, I wear glasses with a suit to kink events. If it didn’t come off as slightly oppressive, suits wouldn’t be used in BDSM.
I can think of one useful function. I have a lot of friends who are totally blind, and there’s an app called Be My Eyes, where a sighted person can take a look at something through your phone’s camera. But, being blind, a lot of blind people are absolutely terrible at aiming cameras, because they can’t see what they’re aiming at.
In this case, the object ends up out of the camera’s field of view, or at an angle, or upside down, etc. etc. etc. Whereas, I think having a pair of smart glasses on your face would make the camera platform be much steadier.
Yes, I have two family members who are blind and they regularly use this app and the meta glasses. It’s a huge help to them!
I can imagine that haptic/soft vibrations could also be used to steer a blind person towards an object that needs more focus by the camera.
As you say, it has a lot of potential for accessibility and people with handicaps like that, but it’s not direction that tech, the economy, or the world itself is interested in right now…
but it’s not direction that tech, the economy, or the world itself is interested in right now…
Yeah great. Capitalist market without socialist values means the elite can overcome their handicaps and live long lives with a physical form sculpted to their wants.
Call me when it’s done without a metric tonne of exploitation.
This comment seems to lack perspective. In countries where medicine is socialised, this technology wasn’t invented. Could it have been? Yes, absolutely. But in the reality we are faced with, it was invented with capitalist values. Now it can be assessed and potentially taken up by public health systems.
I’m not saying that technology and progress is bad nor that we should stop pursuing it.
I’m saying that progress that only benefits 1% or less of the people doesn’t interest me.
If your innovation cannot reasonably exist without economic bubbles and worker exploitation, then it doesn’t deserve to.
Even if we found the cure to cancer tomorrow but it was so expensive and restricted that maybe 1000 billionaires alone could afford it I literally wouldn’t care for it.
The cost for achieving all that is exploitation. It literally worsens the lives of many, so that few can taste the fruits of advancement. I’d rather we discovered that cure 20 years later if it meant that 99% of us had better quality of life.
The rich want the opposite and try convince you and me and everyone else that this is to the benefit of humankind because advancement happen faster with capitalism.
I have no sources on that. But even if they do, I simply don’t care about it. It doesn’t benefit me nor anyone I know.
Yeah I am also not particularly interested by healthcare which only benefits a tiny fraction of society.
However, when glasses were first invented they were only accessible to very few people. Technology tends to get more accessible over time as it is developed from a niche product to something for the mass market. So we can be cautious about the impact of these smart glasses, but still recognise that, for something that costs significantly less than a hearing aid and has hearing-aid like features, making life easier for people with hearing and vision impairments is in fact a key area where tech can help, is helping, and is recognised as such even in the world of big tech.
I’ll give you an upvote. I feel thats fair. Like you guys if you can’t make buck you lose a buck. (Any of you read Uglies?) We really need a reset on the capitalist regime imo and instate a socialist platform that is by the people and for the people. Fuck with this AI nonsense too
It’s really bad yes. I’m no communist but I really think we should have had mixed economies and better tax policies to keep the rich in check. AI and other automation could have led to us working 20hrs a week on average while everything runs smooth, if used for the benefit of all.
Right now they have snowballed so much money and power and tech that I just can’t see how we can out of outside of revolts. Democracy has been corrupted almost everywhere and people are being manipulated into thinking other religions or immigrant are the problem.
There was a time we banned cloning to prevent the rich from making armies to exploit. But religion/ethics made that easy. We never considered doing the same with tech and important means of production.
I understand the gripes about Meta, but I don’t understand how everyone clowns on this like the core concept is stupid or unwanted.
Easy $1000 sell: cycling / escooter accessory. People already regularly buy expensive sport glasses just for sun and wind protection. With a smart version of them like this, you add open ear headphone, and you add the potential for navigation directions, or even a Bluetooth rear view camera on the back of your helmet to get a virtual mirror.
The core technology is impressive, and has legitimate use cases.
But that doesn’t outweigh the enormous privacy concerns these devices raise. They aren’t being angled as an accessory for specific activities, but as everyday wearables. If smart glasses like these became common they would be unavoidable, creating leave of intrusion that’s concerning even without Meta being involved.
“Hi, just wearing my glasses in the changing room…”
As a cyclist, this is a terrible sell. I already have tech which does all this, and probably does it better, for less.
I don’t need a HUD constantly in my face obscuring the beautiful views. I have sun glasses which fit well with a helmet and wrap around my face to keep the wind out.
I have a cycling computer, which offers GPS turn by turn, and pairs to power meters, heart rate and radar light. It is mounted on the handlebars in an easy to view place.
I have bone conducting headphones for music.
All of this is significantly less than $1000, and if something breaks, I can replace it all individually. I also don’t have to wear ridiculous looking sunglasses to listen to my bone conducting headphones.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but this reads a bit like some of the comments on those old Slashdot threads clowning on the first smartphones.
‘these things will fail, I already have a camera, a cellphone, and an mp3 player, why would anyone want them all in one device?’
Heh…these days I kinda long for devices for for specific purposes again 😅 and I’m a software engineer.
Exactly my first thought.
Hope it doesn’t turn out the same way this time around
You’d rather have a camera cell phone and mp3 player than a smartphone?
No.
Doesn’t make me any less apprehensive about meta putting cameras and microphones on everybody’s face.
We’re at the point now that we “need” 6 gadgets that do the same thing.
deleted by creator
Literally everything you said is just dumb hater bullshit. You added nothing to the discussion.
deleted by creator
I agree that head mounted displays can be useful, I’m contemplating getting something like it, but just no cameras, please. not in the frame, not backwards, not anywhere.
If you don’t have cameras you instantly lose a tonne of potential amazing functionality.
If you’re in public you have no expectation of privacy, so someone being able to photograph you or record you with glasses is no different to being able to do it with a camera or phone.
People should still have an expectation of privacy in public spaces to some extent, otherwise the only way is to move to the foresf. One should not have to be concerned about being recorded, especially children (a pdfile can take photos to pick “targets”, so to speak).
People should still have an expectation of privacy in public spaces to some extent
Why? You’re in a public space. You don’t have privacy when you’re out in public. There are already laws around taking photos of minors etc, but it being able to be done via glasses is no different to it being able to be done with a phone or a camera.
Unless society gets revolutionized so that people can remain in their homes as much as they want (and even then), that is not an option.
What is not an option?
Being surveilled in your daily life, becoming a sitting duck.
The pdfile will do it anyways. What concerns me is all those data will be streamed to Meta. They will relay it to Palantir. The best mass surveillance you can think of.
The glasses don’t record and stream all the time btw. They don’t have their own built in wireless connection to meta.
For now, just give it some more time. ;)
Sell your bike to afford them. Easy. It’s another pointless gimmick, like 3D TV or the Metaverse and virtual shopping. Zuckerberg had one idea and got lucky, it’s been wasting money since.
I wonder what the result of mass adoption of these will be on society - surely there will have to be “no smart glasses” rules set up in places where you would expect confidentiality like hospitals and classrooms. Also what the ability to instantly watch video content or listen to anything with the click of your fingers (without anyone knowing) will do to people’s attention spans. Things in public will have a much higher chance of being recorded by someone, for better or for worse. If someone like Elon Musk makes his own with his own “woke free” xAI (which he has so far been unsuccessful in moulding to his viewpoints), people could have an immediate propagandized perspective and answer for anything they see in real life.
surely there will have to be “no smart glasses” rules
They have this rule for ebikes at the lake I love to walk and the kids are zooming by anyway. I think we’ll struggle to enforce it and that really sucks. I hope this fails. It’s hard not to be pessimistic about it, as much as I can see some legitimate use cases. I just don’t trust big tech with it, least of all Meta.
Oh man I’m wearing ray bans. I should get a new pair else I’d get lynched for it… again…
