Oh man I’m wearing ray bans. I should get a new pair else I’d get lynched for it… again…
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
There’s new glassholes?
All I need is a nu-metal revival and we’re back in 2008 baby.
Ah, yet another bit of technology I’ve been looking forward to for years.
Let’s see @technology dump all over it.
I’ll take a crack at it:
- It’s a massive privacy/surveillance concern. Look at the issues that come with doorbell cams and now multiply the number of cameras and scatter them all over
- It’s another platform for mega corporations to track and sell data to advertisers or any malicious actors, but at an entirely new intrusive level. They no longer have to approximate what’s getting your attention when they literally know what has your attention. Good luck anonymizing or hiding your usage when you can’t spoof the real world in front of you.
- It’s unnecessary e-waste, at best providing the exact same functionality you’d get from your phone with the added benefit of… not reaching into your pocket? You still need a free hand to use it…
- It’s a distraction in a way that other tech can’t touch. Pedestrians/drivers getting notifications shoved directly into their eyes won’t end well.
- It probably has all the same inherent problems as previous generations of smart glasses. Primarily: your eyes aren’t designed for extended/repeated focus on an image less than an inch from your face and at the edge of your vision
I read “the new assholes” instead of glassholes.
How improper!
That’s intentional.
Smart glasses also raise many privacy concerns, as their cameras and microphones may be recording at any given time, which can be unnerving to people. When Google launched their Google Glass smart glasses, this led to the coining of the term ‘glasshole‘ for people who refuse to follow perceived proper smart glasses etiquette.
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…”
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).
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. ;)
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.
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?’
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.
Heh…these days I kinda long for devices for for specific purposes again 😅 and I’m a software engineer.
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
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.
To me it seems like a thing that sounds kinda cool on paper, but is not actually that useful in practice. We already have the ability to do real time translations or point the camera at something to get more information via AI with our smartphones, but who actually uses that on the regular? It’s just not useful or accurate enough in its current state and having it always available as a HUD isn’t going to change that imo. Being able to point a camera at something and have AI tell me “that’s a red bicycle” is a cool novelty the first few times, but I already knew that information just by looking at it. And if I’m trying to communicate with someone in a foreign language using my phone to translate for me, I’ll just feel like a dork.
Being able to point a camera at something and have AI tell me “that’s a red bicycle” is a cool novelty the first few times, but I already knew that information just by looking at it.
Visual search is already useful. People go through the effort of posting requests to social media or forums asking “what is this thing” or “help me ID these shoes and where I can buy them” or “what kind of spider is this” all the time. They’re not searching for red bicycles, they’re taking pictures of a specific Bianchi model and asking what year it was manufactured. Automating the process and improving the reliability/accuracy of that search will improve day to day life.
And I have strong reservations about the fundamental issues of inference engines being used to generate things (LLMs and diffusers and things like that), but image recognition, speech to text, and translation are areas where these tools excel today.
they’re taking pictures of a specific Bianchi model and asking what year it was manufactured
And the answer they get will probably be wrong, or at least wrong often enough that you can’t trust it without looking it up yourself. And even if these things do get good enough people will still won’t be using it frequently enough to want to wear a device on their face to do it, when they can already do it better on their phone.
real time translations or point the camera at something to get more information via AI with our smartphones, but who actually uses that on the regular?
Anybody living in a foreign country with a different language.
Being able to read signs and storefronts from a motorbike in real time would be life-changing.
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.
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.
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 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.
New GL-assholes?
Yes, that’s the joke.
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.
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.
…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.
someone gift a pair of meta glasses to robert scoble so we can kill them off for good.
I cannot emphasize enough how unwilling I’d be to interact with someone that has these.
Good thing that the kind of person who would were these in public doesn’t interact with others much anyway
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.
Smart glasses also raise many privacy concerns, as their cameras and microphones may be recording at any given time, which can be unnerving to people.
This reaction has always struck me as, at best ill-informed. If I search for spy camera glasses on Amazon, I can find much cheaper and less obvious options to record people without their knowledge. If glasses are getting extra scrutiny lately, maybe I’d be better off with a spy camera pen or something like this which can be disguised as part of a button-up shirt.
Of course actually using any of these to record people without their consent in most situations makes you an asshole, but that capability already existed and is continually expanding.
sure, but there the spying is the purpose, whereas with the glasses it’s incidental.
you don’t buy such gadgets if you don’t intend to spy, but people would buy meta glasses for other reason, and meta being able to spy on you is just a side-effect. Plus it’ a matter of scale, this has the potential of being much more prominent than some spy camera.
Meta spying is its own issue, and I think a very legitimate concern.
I’m understanding the concern the article mentions about smart glasses in general (independent of who manufactures them) being the user recording people. That’s what people seemed to be upset about when Google Glass launched as well.
I think the reason this is a problem with smart glasses but not with spy pens is that smart glasses are more accessible. I mean, you don’t just keep a spy pen on your person, or even buy one, in case it will be useful, right? but the smart glasses are just there, on your head. and why not take a few stealthy photos if I can just click and its one, nobody knowing? or even just that you take a photo of something, but there are others in the field of view who have no idea.
and not just with Meta. I don’t think other companies either can be trusted with tech like this. Certainly not in this age.
Whoever exhibits that mentality you describe hasn’t waiting for meta to be a creep.
Yeah, they do. You never heard of a crime of opportunity?
Why do you lock your doors at night? You know that anyone who wants to get in can just rake the god damn lock, right? Most people don’t want to get into your house, and the ones who do will be able to enter anyway, so what pathology drives you to waste your time like this?
“Incidental”—this is Meta we’re talking about, and you can exchange them with any other technofacist and it still applies.
But I wholly agree with you that they know exactly what they are doing. This is how they get people to “participate” in their platforms and algorithms, whether they want to or not.
I don’t disagree. I meant for users it is incidental. Most users probably wouldn’t buy them with spying as the main purpose(they just also don’t really care that it can spy). making them much more widespread than something where spying was the main use-case, making the problem worse.
And as someone else mentioned, once you did get it, the temptation for using it for spying is there for a user. Making it worse than e.g. a spy pen imo, as with that you’d need the intent to spy first, and then buy it, but with this, you buy it for whatever reason and then think “oh, I could just spy now” since you already own the device, which I’d argue leads to more overall spying, so to speak. Maybe you see a video online and go “oh, I can just do that, right now, no effort on my part, since I already own this device”.
And for Meta it’s like tracking cookies on crack
Not spying other people. Spying the owner of the glasses.
This was never the concern that caused people to call users “glassholes”.
If the last fifteen years have shown us anything it’s that very few people care.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
Apps like Crouton have a hands free mode which allows you step through the instructions by winking (right = forward, left = back).
