Heaving just been on a trip to the Italian country side and usinga lot of Google lens, I would love that feature inbuilt in glasses.
There were so many road signs where I had to guess whether it meant do not drive here or something else.Pretty sure road signs are internationally standardized. Not fully, but a no entry looks rather similar all over the world.
The tech, if selfhosted and open, would be great. But as it stands, it would be better off banned.
I suppose all tech is pretty much like this. Controlled by the people, it’s great. Controlled by the oligarchs, it’s shitty and oppressive.
People most worry about the hidden cameras and being filmed without noticing and consent. The tech being open wouldn’t change that, even though I agree that an open platform would be awesome.
This is good, but it’s already out of control. If you walk past a parked Tesla, just for example, you’ll be filmed. If you walk past any public building, you’ll be filmed. Public place? Damn right, filmed. As soon as you step out of your house, you’re recorded. And despite all the promises made, I bet much more data lands on some obscure server farms or AI Data centers, than they exclaim.
This is the digital cage and the reason 3,000+ data centers are being built. I think we are headed towards a historically unprecedented level of surveillance where nobody can do or say anything without the Epstein class being alerted.
I was really pumped for smart glasses. I do a lot of my learning while I walk and adding a small video window in the corner of my vision would really help with some of what I’m learning.
Sucks that it turned into what it is…
You don’t need smart glasses for that. You don’t need a camera, internet connection, face recognition or AI to have a small video window in your glasses.
Unfortunately it’s like with smart watches. You can’t get a watch that’s just a display with some API. They all need to include HR monitors and GPS for some reason.
Uuhhh, so, on your second paragraph: pebble
I don’t own one, I don’t know if I want one, but it is exactly that: a e-ink display for time and notifications
Yes, re-pebble round is what I’m describing.
When I was looking for a watch couple of years ago it still didn’t exist. There are the old pebbles but I didn’t know how reliable they still were. I ended up buying a Casio watch with date format setting which was all I needed (pretty much all casio watches use american date format and you need BT to change it).
The battery law is “so broad and so restrictive that it prevents the sale of this wonderful, jointly developed, U.S.-European product from being sold in the European Union…”
No. Meta chose to design e-waste.
Based EU
Hypothetical question: if I invented glasses that told me when people were lying, would they be accepted or would there be an angry uprising to ban them?
edit: reminder - clicking an arrow is not an answer, it means you don’t have one.
edit: why the douchevotes and silence on this? The only responder just deflected the question. It seems to me that taking lying out of human interaction would be a plus. Isn’t the idea at least interesting?
Isn’t the idea at least interesting?
Sure, if you’re asking what to write in your next fantasy novel. This topic is about reality.
Would depend how they work, but assuming we’re using conventional technology and not some magic doohickey that can 100% verify the truth, then you’d probably just get shunned by your peers. Technology cannot accurately verify whether someone is lying unless it’s about an objective fact, and even then, its database may be out of date when someone’s informing you of a new discovery. If you’re using an LLM, then it may just make random shit up. And if you’re using a corporate LLM, then you’re transmitting everything you see and hear to some corporation, where they may keep that data for whatever they please, simply so you can have a popup that tells you either a lie itself, or something you should be able to surmise by yourself. You’re not a corporation, so likely people wouldn’t revolt against the glasses like they do against Facebook’s, they’d just stop talking to you.
I’m talking about detecting dishonest intent, not fact checking.
As am I. Technology cannot accurately discern intent. Fact checking is the easiest way to do that, and only applies to objective truths. Outside of fact checking, it’s completely guessing, and wouldn’t be reliable enough to be useful to anyone.
I’ll wait for somebody who understands what “hypothetical” means. Sorry to take your time.
No you’re not. Argumentative and getting bitchy for random strawman arguments.
My apologies for taking yours, most hypothetical discussions I have still operate under the pretense of reality and what’s currently possible.
I imagine if they were 100% effective by some means, you still wouldn’t be very popular. Lies are a pretty common part of human conversation. You might get sick of them constantly alarming you for small, white lies. Unless you could filter them to only alert for bigger lies, in which case they’d probably find some use by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, but probably still not be very well-liked by the average person.
