Skip to content

Meta Reportedly Eyeing 'Super Sensing' Tech for Smart Glasses

Technology
4 3 52
  • Meta is reportedly developing what it calls a "super sensing" type of facial recognition technology to its smart glasses lineup. A new report from The Information said that Meta is developing software for the glasses that has the ability to recognize people by name and keep better track of what users are doing throughout the day.

    The company originally planned to include similar technology in its first wave of smart glasses, but abandoned that effort due to privacy concerns.

  • Meta is reportedly developing what it calls a "super sensing" type of facial recognition technology to its smart glasses lineup. A new report from The Information said that Meta is developing software for the glasses that has the ability to recognize people by name and keep better track of what users are doing throughout the day.

    The company originally planned to include similar technology in its first wave of smart glasses, but abandoned that effort due to privacy concerns.

    I'll be honest, shit like this would be pretty handy—if it didn't also enable more dystopian shit. I'd be happy if it could just remind me of someone's name and how I know them. Maybe remind me of small talk details. But they aren't going to stop there...

  • I'll be honest, shit like this would be pretty handy—if it didn't also enable more dystopian shit. I'd be happy if it could just remind me of someone's name and how I know them. Maybe remind me of small talk details. But they aren't going to stop there...

    A tool that keeps track of people in your life and gives you small talk cues seems dystopian in its self. Relying on that you would just further isolate yourself from others.

    Thinking about it, I am pretty sure I would immediately despise anyone who used this tool on me, even apart from the fact that they would be putting me into a meta database without my consent. I would despise people who use this tool for the same reason I despise people who crudely implement the strategies from “How to win friends and influence people”. Their interactions are insincere and manipulative.

  • A tool that keeps track of people in your life and gives you small talk cues seems dystopian in its self. Relying on that you would just further isolate yourself from others.

    Thinking about it, I am pretty sure I would immediately despise anyone who used this tool on me, even apart from the fact that they would be putting me into a meta database without my consent. I would despise people who use this tool for the same reason I despise people who crudely implement the strategies from “How to win friends and influence people”. Their interactions are insincere and manipulative.

    I see your point but also I just genuinely don't have a mind for that shit. Even my own close friends and family, it never pops into my head to ask about that vacation they just got back from or what their kids are up to. I rely on social cues from others, mainly my wife, to sort of kick start my brain.

    I just started a new job. I can't remember who said they were into fishing and who didn't, and now it's anxiety inducing to try to figure out who is who. Or they ask me a friendly question and I get caught up answering and when I'm done I forget to ask it back to them (because frequently asking someone about their weekend or kids or whatever is their way of getting to share their own life with you, but my brain doesn't think that way).

    I get what you're saying. It could absolutely be used for performative interactions but for some of us people drift away because we aren't good at being curious about them or remembering details like that. And also, I have to sit through awkward lunches at work where no one really knows what to talk about or ask about because outside of work we are completely alien to one another.

    And it's fine. It wouldn't be worth the damage it does. I have left behind all personally identifiable social media for the same reason. But I do hate how social anxiety and ADHD makes friendship so fleeting.

  • 105 Stimmen
    63 Beiträge
    149 Aufrufe
    S
    Again taxing anything for 100% is stealing, you can do 60-70% though. Sure, if you start with the assumption that things like property and wealth can truly be owned. I personally think 60-70% tax is stealing under that assumption, and that inheritance (and gifts) should be treated like any other income. But I'm starting from a different assumption that property is leased from society generally, and you only really own the value you create personally. When you die, there is no longer any legitimate owner so it must be redistributed. I believe everyone should have equal opportunity to succeed, and that doesn't work if kids can just ride their parents' coattails. There will always be some of that with parents using their connections to help their kids get ahead, but inheriting a fortune completely kills any need to actually compete to succeed. If we want a meritocratic society, we need to kill as much nepotism as we can. This article makes similar claims but from a little different perspective. Instead we should have a good system of social security which means everybody has a basis income which should allow them to properly survive and thrive a bit. Agreed, but without the "thrive" bit. I think we need something like universal basic income to ensure everyone is above the poverty line, but that should be the extent of it. Along with this, I think we should eliminate the minimum wage and let the market decide what's fair. However, this is completely separate from inheritance. I don't think the government should use that money for any purpose, it should strictly be redistributed if the person who died didn't choose any charities or whatever to donate to. The government should also give it to any survivors first if there's no will, up to the limit. I don't see it as a tax because the government isn't taking that money, it's merely facilitating redistribution. passing companies down Passing down shares would be subject to the same inheritance rules.
  • 85 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    92 Aufrufe
    internetcitizen2@lemmy.worldI
    Pumped up kicks is still relevant
  • 195 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    385 Aufrufe
    isveryloud@lemmy.caI
    It's a loaded term that should be replaced with a more nimble definition. A dog whistle is the name for a loaded term that is used to tag a specific target with a large baggage of information, but in a way where only people who are part of the "in group" can understand the baggage of the word, hence "dog whistle", only heard by dogs. In the case of the word "degeneracy", it's a vague word that has been often used to attack, among other things, LGBTQ and their allies as well as non-religious people. The term is vague enough that the user can easily weasel their way out of criticism for its usage, but the target audience gets the message loud and clear: "[target] should be attacked for being [thing]." Another example of such a word would be "woke".
  • No, Social Media is Not Porn

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    52 Aufrufe
    Z
    This feels dystopian and like overreach. But that said, there definitely is some porn on the 4 platforms they cited. It's an excuse sure, but let's also not deny reality.
  • Palantir hits new highs amid Israel-Iran conflict

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    41 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    52 Aufrufe
    W
    I think both peace and war are profitable. But those that profit from war may be more pushy than those that profit from peace, and so may get their way even as an unpopular minority . Unless, the left (usually more pro peace) learns a few lessons from the right and places good outcomes above the holier than thou moral purity. "I've never made anyone uncomfortable" is not the merit badge that some think it is. Of course the left can never be a mirror copy of the right because the left cannot afford to give as few fucks about anything as the right (who represent the already-haves economic incumbents; it's not called the "fuck you money" for nothing). But the left can be way tougher and nuancedly uncompromising and even calculatingly and carefully millitant. Might does not make right but might DOES make POLICY. You need both right and might to live under a good policy. Lotta good it does anyone to be right and insightful on all the issues and have zero impact anywhere.
  • 16 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    22 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 116 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    83 Aufrufe
    S
    Common Noyb W
  • 19 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    69 Aufrufe
    A
    Fantastic! Me and my 7 legs tank you so much!