RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
68% Positive
Analyzed from 3357 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#glasses#meta#camera#cameras#don#wearing#phone#need#public#without
Discussion (79 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
That must have cost a lot. To get posters like that made.
Release a model without a camera and people might actually give it a chance.
I agree it would be nice to have a non-skeezy offering, but I think that would be an entirely different product line.
[Edit: oh, well, I didn't realize some but not all of the meta glasses do actually have a tiny display built in. That would be the other use case, for the looking at things, through your glasses.]
* Okay, the sound quality is just alright, but if Meta wanted to pivot to headphones, I'm all ears, as it were.
From what I can tell we aren't particularly close to putting this all together in a consumer usable package.
They also have to look radically different, because anyone who sees someone wearing the current design will always just assume the person using them is a creeper recording creepy videos whether or not the glasses are even capable of doing that. The association is already made from the current model.
The more nefarious motive is to inject a layer of AI between humans and nature.
The translation feature is also available on your phone which you'll need to pull out when using it anyway, because otherwise the other party won't understand what you're saying either...
The camera feature is also really nice for a lot of non-creepy use cases. From translating signs and plaques in front of me w/o pulling out my phone, to taking 1st person videos on amusement park rides, to photos of my son without having to view the world through my phone waiting for just the right shot.
Heck video calls with Grandma where I can chase my son around the house and let Grandma see everything, or when we read books together over video chat.
Meta glasses are great for parents, kids do all sorts of wacky things and I don't want to be one of those parents always waiting with my phone out so I can capture the perfect picture.
I think a major use case for live translation is one where the other party is standing opposite to you.
Fixed it for you.
What’s the story here other than a gruesome image?
I wish their storytelling matched their visual designs in terms of imagination.
So yeah, "educating people against some technology" is kind of the only way to help people see what is going on.
I mean, the government isn't run by aliens... probably.
A young, authoritarian-minded elitist aiming to force their views onto the rest of us 'stupid sheep'...with the implicit threat of a gun to the head via the state's monopoly on violence.
Have you ever examined the idea that, people doing things you don't agree with may not all be less enlightened than you? And that, in fact, it could be you who is a sheep, angrily shouting in unison with the mob in the midst of a trendy moral panic...scapegoating all the worlds problems and your own personal frustrations onto some dumb social media app?
Clearly there is a difference between someone waving a SLR camera around (digital or film) and the possibilities of today and where the content ends up.
However... the pub/bar/nightclub, gym, pool, etc etc etc isn't public. It is the private property of the owner. So if people don't like them - as is evident it seems - these glasses should hit social resistance.
I absolutely wouldn't want them to incorporate a camera though. They should not have one at all.
And I would want them with open firmware from a respectable company or organisation. So these ones are a non starter obviously.
Do you really need this for that?
The dumb speaker that OpenAI is hoping you stick in your home to spy on you is not some preposterously worthless piece of crap from beginning to end without exception. It's just a creepy mess that's nowhere near worth it for anybody who cares about themselves or anyone who ever visits their domicile. That doesn't mean that it isn't pretty nice to have your hands full of grease and be able to get a small piece of information using your voice.
All about the details. You want to ethically produce something private at reasonable cost without excessive energy usage to serve useful functions, sign me up. Just no cloud, no privacy invasion, an entire impossible wishlist for companies not as cool as e.g. Framework.
Again there the problem was not the display, it was the camera. And Google glass didn't even use it for any tracking purpose.
I don't think the issue is that it can't be done without the camera. I think the issue is that the whole product exists to get those cameras out there. Data is the new gold, those vision AIs need to be trained. So they've never even tried without one.
You'd be Mark Zuckerberg's idea of an ideal person.
If those glasses would be hackable and not tied to shady companies (Meta), and if power budget would allow for that (doubt it), I’d love to use camera for always-on face recognition. (Wait, put that pitchfork down please.)
My brain has difficulty recognizing faces on its own, a face almost never “clicks” (I recognize people by overall appearance instead). I see those glasses as a sign that maybe I can have prosthetics someday, for what others seem to take for granted. No storage or transmission past the companion device, obviously. And a private non-shared database - I literally have no use for faces of people I don’t know.
But seeing all the ignorance with go-to “that’s only for creepy perverts, ban that and punch faces” altitude makes me quite unhappy.
- Wear sunglasses or glasses now
- Take pics or videos with your phone
Smart glasses are very handy and when traveling especially solo asking about what your seeing in front of you is handy/informative.
I can see when AI becomes 100% reliable with smart glasses we all are almost know it alls. Everything and anything we need to know will be presented in front of us.
Ok all the above sounds crazy to most, but ive enjoyed using my Metas since Oct 2023 (had to buy another paid April 2025) though Meta glasses are sh!t in terms of durability. So i can recommend smart glasses but not really Metas especially if you like to buy technology that lasts!
Keep going with that line of imagination and it's easy to understand how even someone burned on the Metaverse could be excited about the kinds of pitches Zuckerberg must give for his future visions. (Legitimately exciting thoughts, w/optimist hat on)
Have you ever unintentionally recorded a stranger?
Pardon but I don't understand your question cause if you think of it all humans have done the above since the day cameras or video cameras existed.
Further, im pretty sure smart glasses to AI devices are the next big thing. Meta probably will not win the smart glass race as many hate them due to privacy reasons. Apple a privacy focused company could add tech to blur out and or anonymize faces of those in the background to calm peoples fears.
I need a device that tells me who I’m talking to if I’ve been introduced to them before and tell me how I know them (This is Bob Dobbs, you first met him in Texas in 1985 and he saved you at that party when you needed some Slack)”. Especially great when I meet someone out of context.
But bad actors mean I’ll probably never get this prosthesis.
These things are peak ick
One day perhaps Meta Glasses will be the same. I really like them. They're a spectacular (haha) addition to a sightseeing trip. At the aquarium you can ask them what you're looking at and it'll tell you about the fish, at the playground you can record your kids running around, and you've got music where you go and so on. The problem, of course, is that they have short battery life and I don't want to switch from my smart glasses to my other glasses since the entire point is availability.
Here's a video of my daughter running around the playground from the perspective of my wife: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcLAByw6ZYc
Two very different use cases. The vast majority of folks wearing AirPods are listening, not talking. The former is not disruptive to others while the latter is.
It's been over 20 years since then and it's still just as awkward to take a call in public. People will instinctively prefer a quiet place away from the crowd. Otherwise others may eavesdrop, think you're talking to them, or are crazy.
You'll find that most of those people with airpods are listening to something, not talking on a call. The most popular "smart glasses" that I see everywhere don't have cameras. They're "AR" HUDs for watching movies or playing games.
It's not about social acceptance. These hardware designs still suck big time.
Yeah that's still weird. Last time it happened to me was in the City of London near Liverpool St (ironic as we're talking about banking phonecalls). Out of nowhere a guy walking towards me starts speaking, for all the world like he's trying to talk to me, so I stopped and said "Hey, can I help you?"
Nope, strides on past, then I noticed the airpods.
Additionally there are laws and expectations around cameras in places like bathrooms. Those laws still exist for smartglasses-wearers, but it can be hard to police if it is not obvious that the glasses have cameras and are recording.
How? This is just going to give a bunch of creepy men an easier way to film me. I'm dreading these getting mainstream adoption.
(1) a single or handful of security-angled cameras controlled by a local business for security purposes
(2) any individual possibly recording you at eye level at any second without you knowing, and having the ability to use and manipulate that footage and upload it to the internet
Anyone have data on this? Feelin’ doubtful
How?
yes, please.
i think that is exactly the direction we should be pushing. this creepy compulsion to record random people is weird af.
Before, when it was he said, she said, it was always tenuous for the person with less power to pursue the issue. Now, they can finally access consequences for people violating their freedoms.
This ridiculous idea that "it's in public so you have no expectation of privacy" is a semantic retcon, the pervasiveness of cameras is new and fundamentally changes your level of exposure in the public sphere. Overtly recording people in public is not really OK. Face-mounted, covert recording is another step too far and offensive to most people.
If you genuinely wish to understand the attitude, may I recommend doing a deep dive into the many fine articles written about this back in 2013-15, when Google failed to launch the original glasshole-wear.
1. Women do it. 2. The government does it. 3. Private businesses do it.
What?!
Monitoring everything around you, all the time.
And what you've heard about the UK police is likely to have been comically exaggerated by people with an agenda. There are problems, yes, they do not arrest thousands of people a year for being mean on twitter, no.
(I'm rate limited and can't reply below - when people look into these figures what they tend to find is the majority are people getting arrested for using services like whatsapp or facebook messenger to stalk, harass and threaten others, often in a domestic-violence situation. These are categorised as social media-related but it's not what is often described or assumed by american commentators, that they said something politically sensitive in public, and OH MY GOSH just look at the state of free speech in Britain. It's often much more along the lines of abusers threatening to kill an ex that finally managed to leave them.)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...
It doesn't need to be thousands for it to be worrying.
From [1]:
> The Metropolitan Police has awarded Father Ted creator and Irish comedian Graham Linehan £25,000 and an unreserved apology after they arrested him last year as his plane touched down at Heathrow airport.
> Last year, Graham Linehan — who now lives in Arizona, United States of America — was arrested by five armed police officers as he landed at Heathrow airport in one of the most shocking incidents we have seen in years.
> What was Graham's supposed crime? Three gender-critical posts on X. This is despite the fact that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and were reaffirmed by last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling, which settled that "sex" is defined by biology, not gender identity.
Armed police for 3 tweets on a political topic, seems like overkill in an unfortunately possible literal use of the word. It also seems that it is far more than one, too:
> General Secretary of the Free Speech Union, Lord Young, said: "I'm beginning to lose count of the number of cases we've fought in which the police have arrested someone for a tweet, decided to take no further action and then had to pay them substantial compensation for wrongful arrest.
[1] https://freespeechunion.org/news/met-police-apologises-and-p...
They arrest thousands of people for posts they make online. The public data does not break down what site it the arrests were from.
Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely anti a lot of things, including people wearing cameras all the time, but I see no logical way to stop it without stomping on freedoms. In this case, defense will be your ally, whatever form that may take,eg wearing a mask.
If I had to choose between flock cameras and meta glasses existing, I'd choose the glasses.
Whatever happened to give me liberty or give me death
Why?