1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
The current obcession is tech but we should remember ourselves that bio-tech is a thing and small achievements in it have profound impacts.
Medication to regrow teeth has been developed. Cultured tissues have been created. At some point, we may very well develop the techniques and technology to either create organs in vitro or medication capable of regrowing organs.
Conventional nuts and bolts or wires and chips tech will be rendered useless.
That hinges on governments actually moving their arse and regulating such technologies. To ensure they would assist disabled folks who need them without becoming just another trojan horse for mass surveillance && ultracapitalist advertisement.
In other words, I can pretty much guarantee that yes, anyone with eye implants will be unwelcome in my circle.
Because governments won't regulate things done by big tech (let alone something done by a marriage of big tech and big pharma, two of the most powerful corporate overlords).
And so the eye implants will be just as perverted as the AI Pervert Glasses if not even more so.
Sad to say I would not trust anyone who is constantly pointing a secret corpo camera at me. Even if its curing their blindness
This. Open-source IS accessibility.
Pervert-I-plants
Do those of you that despise smart glasses think you'll have the same moral issues with optical implants?
yes.
What could be done to avoid the issues you have with the glasses when it comes to implants, if anything?
mostly nothing. it could be a solution if they could be easily verifiably made for anyone that these don't have any wireless connections, or any kind of connection to a computer network. and that these have no capability of storing recordings. but this is not possible.
Do you intend to discriminate against people with augments if you live long enough to see them in widespread use?
Unfortunately, yes. just like I want to keep robots and surveillance cars out of my life, and my environment. but that is already not working out, as people are perfectly comfortable with their cars recording all their neighborhood.
In your deus ex scenario who makes the augments? A mega corporation. So yes they will absolutely be vilified because they won't be for the good of humanity they'll be to charge a subscription for... vision, and spy on everyone you know.
Only way they should be accepted is as legit medical devices with open sources and no ability to stream or record video only pipe directly into the optic nerve. They should not be for tech bro fantasies.
Smartglasses were not "vilified", they were already vile to begin with. They were just put on the list of vile things it's socially acceptable to complain about.
Will they be made by a company with a history of mining your data and ignoring your privacy, with the capability to clandestinely record people?
If so, then yeah, as they should be.
If not, then they should be fine.
I think you're fundamentally (willfully?) misunderstanding the problem that people have with meta glasses. The problem isn't just that they have cameras in them.
If a frog had wings would it bump it's ass when it hopped? That's about as relevant as this question.
is it possible that these glasses are "villified" because they're made by an actual villain? meta does not believe people deserve privacy, and their tech is explicitly trying to mine data from people for manipulative uses in advertising, creative farming, and media manipulation.
also, optical implants may not necessarily need a "camera" to work. degenerative and genetic vision disorders are not a monolith, and oftentimes it's about transmission of the image to the brain, not the eye itself.
The glasses are vilified as much by the use case. Google Glass was hated about just as much and the reason was because the user was recording video when people didn't want to be recorded. People trusted that the video wasn't going to Google, they just didn't trust the users pointing a camera at all times.
I suspect optical implants will address this by never building in the ability to record.
There aren't going to be a whole lot of people who are going to fuck with their eyesight if they don't have a severe eyesight handycap, which isn't as common as Meta wants smart glasses to be.
Also, every hearing aid is a microphone, yet I've never heard of a case where information from hearing aids was being misused. Almost like there's a big divide between aids for disabilities and surveillance tech.
The hearing aid comparison is a great point.
Not really. Hearing aids aren't uploading everything they hear to the cloud.
People are seen by others constantly, it's knowing that someone could save that video and later share it online that creeps people out.
I've never heard of a case where information from hearing aids was being misused.
Yet.
My grandpa's hearing aids have a Bluetooth connection. He can receive phone calls with them.
Eh, hearing aids are tiny and have a very small battery, a standard hearing aid may have bluetooth (my mom's hearing aids do) but keeping it active constantly transmitting the microphone would trash the battery.
It is similar to bluetooth headphones, they have larger batteries but still I have not heard about them constantly keeping the microphone active. All the ones I have seen even requires a physical action to be performed to use a voice assistant
They definitely do have some that stay on all the time and they have ones with batteries behind the ear that are charged daily.
With an active BT audio connection?
Don't just mean a normal BT connection to answer calls?
It can be used to listen to music
Yes, but we were talking about the microphone
Hopefully, there will be regulations on the hardware that come in that make it really hard to just secretly record people. If not, smart glasses are just going to get banned in any functioning democracy. (People are only okay with being spied in sufficiently abstract ways, you see) Either way, the controversy isn't going to blow back on the formerly blind.
In autocracies, god knows. Maybe they require a licence to prove that the user is "trustworthy", that only people with government connections can get.
So I work a secure unit where we take people's devices for the privacy of all patients. We had to take a patient's prescription glasses that they like, use to not fall down while walking, because they were smart glasses with audio / video recording functionality. This is just a whole extra level of #NewFearUnlocked. I cannot imagine the administrative clusterfuck this would cause.
It'll be way, way worse than what you're thinking because of prevention mechanisms for corporate espionage, and just regular old espionage for that matter. The technology to remotely shutdown/control cars that everyone agrees exists today, and is a problem today? It's coming to eyes in the future. You won't be allowed to work for company X unless they get the keys to control the recording function on your eyes, because otherwise you could walk off with their recipes or whatever. It's even a completely understandable "ask," but as with the cars, TVs, cell phones, smart watches, etc, there's no user/owner level control over restrictions. You can't unplug your eyes the way you can a car cell antenna.
It's a good time to talk about it since the technology isn't here yet, because the first implementations of it will be desperate volunteers who'll sign up for anything to get sight, and it'll be really hard to argue to someone who had some irreversable, company proprietary device installed on the end of their optic nerve the ins and outs of why the signed away the rights to know if their eyes are recording them and transmitting without their knowledge.
This has also occurred to me but I'm not at exactly the point in my life where this is the most relevant part of the debate compared to the effect that directly impacts my primary specialty.
You can source new prescription glasses for someone to replace the AV glasses; it might take a bit, but it can be done. The infrastructure necessary to securely disable a set of features in any person's eyes who could plausibly need to be in an environment like you're describing means they'll all be designed/built that way.
Short answer: No, this is not an issue. The FDA’s medical device regulations are not conducive to targeted advertising/data sharing/moving fast and breaking things. Data collected would be de-facto PHI, so it’s more liability than utility.
Meta want you to record things with the glasses to upload to Facebook. People who make DME firmware do not.
Ah, yes, clearly we can trust the government to regulate this. There won't be any financial incentive or privacy risks.
The FDA
Muuhahahahaaaa....
Think about people who are crazy enough (or desperate) to buy a camera that's built right into their eyes... do you really think they give a damn?
IF FDA
THEN GOTO ELSEWHERE FOR (x)
If they're internet connected, sure I would. It's a matter of trust. If I can't be around you without Zuckerberg or someone looking at me too, then I don't want to be around you.
Probably not, there seems to be actual use cases for optical implants, instead of excuses.
It's a gargoyle, standing in the dimness next to a shanty. Just in case he's not already conspicuous enough, he's wearing a suit. Hiro starts walking toward him. Gargoyles represent the embarrassing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into separate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. Nothing looks stupider, these getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society. They are a boon to Hiro because they embody the worst stereotype of the CIC stringer. They draw all of the attention. The payoff for this self-imposed ostracism is that you can be in the Metaverse all the time, and gather intelligence all the time.
Gargoyles are no fun to talk to. They never finish a sentence. They are adrift in a laser-drawn world, scanning retinas in all directions, doing background checks on everyone within a thousand yards, seeing everything in visual light, infrared, millimeter. wave radar, and ultrasound all at once. You think they're talking to you, but they're actually poring over the credit record of some stranger on the other side of the room, or identifying the make and model of airplanes flying overhead. For all he knows, Lagos is standing there measuring the length of Hiro's cock through his trousers while they pretend to make conversation.
---Snow Crash
Neal Stephenson had it be ostracized.
I should really read that one.
And believe it or not, this is a REALLY old book. If you notice, it used the word Metaverse 30 years before Zuckerberg did. He's read the book, he ripped off the name, and he's trying to recreate a dystopian society.
Hah! Google did Snow Crash's Earth (well, not exactly, as in Snow Crash, there were streaming video feeds available as a data source, and Google Earth only uses static tiled images, but...)
Definitely a good book, but you do have to be able to mentally get past the really, really stupid name Stephenson used for the story's hero/protagonist.
I see what you did there....
I assume if we survive climate change and technology continues, that we will enter a society where we are recorded almost 24/7 through different means The question becomes “Will this be data owned by corporations?”, because that will dictate many things.
I suspect that this will get addressed by implants being able to output video except to the brain. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens if only to airgap the sensor from being hacked.
We will cross that bridge when we get there.
People twist and turn to vilify the things they want to vilify and excuse the things they want to excuse. I've been seeing it increasingly in the context of AI where people draw distinctions between "generative AI" and "machine learning" based on whether they like the individual application or not. It might be fine to use LLMs for assistance with programming, but the same LLM becomes Satan incarnate if it's helping write a fanfic. Photoshop can use AI to do image segmentation for "smart select" but the same AI is taking jobs from artists if it touches one pixel's colour values.
We're a little way off from optical implants becoming good and popular yet, so I guess we'll just have to see which way the winds are blowing when we get there. Probably it'll be fine, I expect most people will find ways to excuse them.
If people like Zuccers are selling them I’ll be ripping peoples eyes out on contact.
no, no that, thats gross. but they can go elsewhere.
Time to build a pocket emp.
Don't worry about lemmy's reaction to anything. They would ban remembering things you've seen if they could.
So, are optical implants going to be vilified the same way smart glasses have been?
You can remember things (somewhat) without a recording device.
