joe

I consider the meta glasses new enough that it’s an early-adoption product. Early adopters are usually not tech illiterate. Does that make sense?

The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.

How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.

Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.

But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.

I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.

But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.

You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.

Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?

I want to believe that the Venn diagram of tech illiterate people and people wearing meta glasses has no overlap, but point taken.

“Send data” meaning what? That phrase is suspiciously vague compared to what I said.

Sued for what?

Does it matter whether the camera is on or off?

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.

From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that’s on their face, then you can’t rule out that they’d do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.

At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn’t come off suggesting otherwise.

The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.

I only spend time on Lemmy in bursts, but it has become pretty clear that most people in this “technology” community absolutely hate all forms of technology. It’s pretty weird.

Sure, but if a person doesn’t trust their doctor to have a camera in their possession in the room, why would they trust that same doctor not to have one hidden?

It comes down to trust, though. Look at it this way: if a doctor wanted to surreptitiously record a patient during a state of undress, would they do it with a camera on their face, or one hidden in the room?

I totally get what you’re saying.

However, it is kind of funny (interesting?) that people will trust that there isn’t a hidden camera in the exam room without question, but mistrust someone who has a camera openly displayed, but off, in the exam room. As if the reminder that cameras exist is what negates that trust, not the risk of being recorded.

This is more of a philosophical musing than a defense of wearing a camera into an exam room.

Imagine how silly it might have sounded to suggest that at one point most people would carry super powerful computers in their pockets, back when it took an entire room to do very basic computing.

Do they contradict each other? They might use a broader definition of “open source” than you prefer, but it doesn’t seem contradictory.

But, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean.

“AI today” changes every few months, they aren’t more error prone than humans at medium complexity code, and debugging a problem is different than checking someone’s work. (And not for nothing, but Code Generation LLMs are really good at finding bugs in code, if passed the code.)

That’s not to mention that prompting AI is a skill that needs to be learned, despite LLMs being able to accept natural language prompts. Not learning how to use a tool and then claiming the tool isn’t useful doesn’t really say much about the tool.

There’s a saying about how its impossible to convince someone of something if they’re financially incentivized to remain unconvinced that I think applies to most people when they discuss AI.

Most people do have the hardware to run them. Maybe not super high end ones but middle of the road ones.

Again, the solution won’t ever be “no more AI”. The solution will be regulation, social safety nets, taxation, etc.

It should definitely not take the same amount of time to check someone’s work as it does to do the work.

I didn’t realize you meant that. In my mind humans could drag stuff and catch fish but the inventions made it easier or more efficient.

In that view, pretty much anything on a computer can be done easier or more efficient with AI. Same as a net or a wheel. Just Google anything it is you might want to do on a computer and add “using AI” and you’re likely to find a tool to do it. If you have the computer for it, you can download an open weight model to do locally (though probably not as well as using the crazy compute associated with using an API model.

Also, as agentic AI improves, we’ll see the scarcity of attention decrease and maybe vanish entirely. It’s not always obvious, but much of how our society is structured assuming that people have limited agency.

Do you mind sharing what your profession is?

previously impossible thing that AI lets me do

When did anyone ever claim that? It’s not going to break the laws of physics.

If you do it on a computer, current AI (an umbrella term) can probably make it easier for you to do, if not just do it for you.

Again, you’re using 400+ years of hindsight to inform your conclusion. “Looking at small things” doesn’t immediately imply “unlocking the secrets of the universe”, it’s only after hundreds of years of building on that invention that you can easily point to that conclusion.

And admittedly the analogy was not great, I’m just trying to get across that you’re looking at the output of the invention and asking “is that it”? But we’ve only had this technology for a decade or so, and it’s only really been public facing for, what, 4 years?

These various technologies we refer to as “AI” are not yet at the point where they can replace any human at any task, but they can replace some humans at some tasks, and as far as the evidence shows, we can continue to improve it with more training and more compute. They are writing prose well enough to pass as humans, solving math problems we haven’t been able to solve for decades, writing medium complexity code in minutes instead of days-- the technology isn’t solving all the world’s problems and ushering in a post-scarcity utopia, but no one is claiming it is, today. Will it? I doubt it, but that’s more to do with capitalism corrupting everything it touches than anything else.

If you think “AI” is not useful, you’re probably considering a very narrowly defined type of “AI” in a very narrowly defined scenario where AI does not perform well.

Edit: I want to take a second to say that I’ve enjoyed this conversation with you. I can’t say that about many conversations on this topic. This isn’t me ending the conversation.