I can see tremendous accessibility benefits, something we've probably only scratched the very surface of.

I can't wait to see a nonprofit, medical, or even governmental body work on something like this specifically as an accessibility tool, like hearing aids before it. That will be absolutely amazing, revolutionary even.

But this isn't about an assistive tool or medical device. This is about a mass surveillance device made by a corporation whose moral code is known to all; they have none.

When one's rights require other people's rights to be impeded upon or violated, it tends to not really be about that person's rights. It's about doing what that person wants regardless of the consequences and harm caused to others.

There is zero doubt what this product is for, and it's frankly shocking how many people willingly give away other people's rights just so they can walk around as the next generation of Glassholes — whatever the reasoning behind that may be.

That it actually can offer something helpful to some is a mere accidental side effect. And however nice that benefit may be, it comes at a cost far greater than some seem to want to accept. To ask everyone around you to give up on their rights and have their information, conversations, and more, be recorded and passed on to the Sugarmountain is, quite frankly, too much to ask for that accidental benefit.

Not to mention the moral and environmental costs. But I know most folk tend to wave away these issues when they are brought up in the context of "AI" usage. It's the meat eater's argument all over again.

how very true yes.

Companies like Meta have a very long track record of acquiring amazing (and) accessible technologies, only to then butcher it and/or absorb it into their money printing machines.

This, too, allows exactly the same companies to hide their vile business practices behind what is effectively a human shield of people who require or otherwise benefit from accessibility features.

Here, for example, you are rightfully worried blind and other people who could legitimately benefit from these kinds of technologies might get lobbed in with the perverts and antisocial idiots who buy these products "just because they want to," which is exactly what these companies want.

Ultimately I think it's best to see these use cases as wholly separate, and not veer into whataboutism territory as much as is possible. Blind people must be allowed access to and to wear assistive tools, and perverts and Glassholes can bugger right off. Both things can and should coexist.

Also, people who complain about folk coming into places with guide dogs can go to hell. Seriously, what's wrong with these people.

that sounds very useful, I'm glad such a device exists that isn't made by Meta or its ilk. And yeah, in a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about practical tools getting abused; having cameras onboard for the purpose of giving you a way to live and move about makes absolute sense.

It's just so very unfortunate that we live in a world of the capitalist —and, really what's behind all this, selfish— person. The phrase "and this is why we can't have nice things" always comes to mind. And people who need or otherwise benefit from accessibility solutions usually end up with the short end of the stick.

All I want to say is that I will refuse to talk with anyone who wears one of these products, if they are made by the kinds of corporations that are actively destroying humanity and, indeed, the world as we know it.

But I would love to see the kind of glasses you have, and wouldn't at all mind sharing a cup of coffee or tea with you either. I think I could learn quite a bit from you, even though I also know if I were to listen to how some people behave towards you and some of your friends like those who have guide dogs, I'll probably end up finding even further lows in my disappointment in humanity 😔

actually, what you're describing is precisely why this particular thing is not complex. Precisely because these kinds of technologies will get abused and used to abuse is why we must ensure wearing these kinds of devices is not ever socially normalized.

What you're describing is horrendous, and one of the many reasons I'm repulsed by myself for looking like those people, for having the same gender as those people, oftentimes the same skin color as those people.

But normalizing these kinds of technologies will do nothing but perpetuate and worsen the problem we've had as long as humans have been around; those same people will have more powerful toys to abuse more, more efficiently, and at even larger scales.

In a morally just world we could all trust one another, use these technologies no matter what company makes them, and in the appropriate situations know that the other party will take off their smart glasses.

In the real world, this technology will give more people the sickening power to look at you in the way you described, and without you even knowing it share that view with everyone else.

In the country where I live, phone makers are legally required to forcibly enable phone photo sound effects, because they know plenty of perverts have been making upskirt photos, toilet photos, whatever kind of photos of people in private moments or angles without consent.

Just like there are real situations where it might be necessary (or just useful) to be able to make a photo without producing a loud sound whilst doing so, precisely because we can't trust people to do the right thing, we can't have that.

It comes at a cost to more morally just people, but it's the price we must pay for living alongside the morally less just.

(Admittedly it's a small cost in this particular example, but I hope the example helps bring my thoughts across nonetheless.)