Where did I say anything about laws? But, now that you mention it, yes, I fully expect we will see new laws once one of these devices cause a problem for a rich person.

Not wanting to have my every action, interaction, or participation in public life recorded, uploaded, analyzed, dissected, and monetized for teh LOLs is a "fetish" deserving of "therapy"? (I would argue fetishists are much more likely to own these glasses than non-fetishists.)

I wouldn't call myself a victim, at least not as much as women, those with disabilities, accents, from other countries, or have other affectations that are much more likely to be victimized by these devices than me. And that doesn't even account for artificially generated confrontations that are done for the purpose of creating "content."

I'd like to, and it is much easier for me to be me when you're not shoving that stupid camera in my face.

You believe secretly filming people, and then showing these secretly-captured videos to your friends, is good "entertainment and enjoyment?"

Maybe I'm old. But to me it sounds creepy, stalker-ish, and obnoxious behavior.

How do you have any idea what I was or was not bitching about 30 years ago? What a strange argument.

Yes, spy cams have been around for decades. But they weren't mass marketed and sold in the millions, over 7 million Meta glasses just last year. And, 30 years ago, it was much more difficult to upload, share and access videos from said spycams. Today, a video shot in a random Walmart in southern California can be viewed nearly anywhere in the world in moments; and getting it taken down once it is broadcast globally is nearly impossible.

It's not like people are using these glasses to film their child's soccer game. People are wearing them, filming all the time, with the hope that some rando will do something stupid or weird or odd and they can then go viral and make $$. While as a member of said public, it means feeling like you are being filmed all the time everywhere by strangers for the purpose of the LOLs or to even have your image and likeness abused, manipulated, distorted in harmful ways. Even though most said filming in public places is technically "legal," I find it intrusive, offensive, rude, and boorish behavior that has been enabled and made simple and even more powerful by these stupid glasses, which to me clearly have no legitimate, beneficial purpose.

That's the thing with these glasses: there is no legitimate use. The primary purpose is to conceal the fact that you are recording video. When could that possibly "benefit mankind as a whole"?

It sounds like from the article that AI does. I imagine the developers worked really hard to get AI to understand the idea of a reward, because that way AI could become goal-oriented while seeking novel methods to achieve that goal. Now, AI doesn't "feel" anything; and it can't be excited or happy to have achieved a reward or goal. But it does understand the notion of seeking to accomplish something with any means possible, and that's definitely a problem.

If it's entertainment, well, who cares, other than the few people who make a living making movies? Movies have always been "fake." Fake sets, fake clothing, fake make-up, fake lighting, fake sounds...etc. Sure, the people were "real," but they were pretending (acting) and doing things that are fake. Even the love scenes are fake. The ability of the viewer to set aside this knowledge (that it is all fake), allows entertainment to be more engrossing and engaging.

Personally, the more AI that gets used in movies, the more likely I am to go see live theater. But that's just me.

This is how nearly all research on hazardous activities is done. You can't, for example, assign people to text while driving (and then see how many more of them die). Or give a test group fentanyl or a control group placebo and see which group has more deaths.

But the lack of a randomized control trial doesn't make it useless, and in many situations RCTs are ethically reprehensible.

Usually a finding of this sort suggests the strategy of taking away that hazard and then continuing to track the harms; and if the harms decrease this provides some evidence toward causality.

I haven't read the nearly 70 studies this review article considered, but I would assume it is nearly impossible to design an ethical randomized control study to examine this question. What, are you going to assign 50 teens to use social media 3+ hours a day and then find another 50 who don't use it at all, and then see which group is more likely to kill themselves?

The article did mention that it is possible both are true - that teens who are more depressed are more likely to use social media intensively, and that intensive social media use causes depression (thus creating a vicious cycle).

Regardless, social media use is an important risk factor for these negative health and social outcomes, so it makes sense to restrict its use or remove it from children's access.

Citation needed. Because there is strong evidence that social media in particular increases depression, anxiety, behavioral problems, sleep problems, body image issues, addiction, psychological problems, headaches, and other problems in children. And we've known it for years. Here's a summary of the research from 2022: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601...

Yes, the names are confusing. But "Fox" is an over the air broadcast network that is subject to broadcast licensing since they make use of the public airwaves, and any of the local affiliates that broadcast news would be subject to equal time provisions (although historically certain specific shows, such as late-night talk shows, including Fox's Arsenio Hall show, have been exempt from the provision).

Fox News is a cable or streaming-only station that is not subject to the same broadcast licensing since they do not make use of the public airwaves.

This rule only applies to news programs and to stations with over-the-air broadcasting. Kimmel (and the other comedy talk shows) have long been exempt from this standard. Until the big orange cheeto and his sycophants, of course.

They don't have a broadcast license since they are only on cable or streaming. So this threat doesn't apply to them.

But, to answer your question, no, they never even tried to give equal time. And they never tried to present facts, either, but that's a different discussion.

The job of an analyst isn't to report or summarize the numbers that are already available. The job is to find the lies and BS and call it out. I've yet to see an AI that can do this.

But, if all you want is cheap garbage...then AI it is!

I find this anti-AI regulation argument disingenuous.

First, China's already won, without firing a single bullet. They've out innovated, out manufactured, out maneuvered all other countries in the world and are now the dominant global super power. And they, more than anyone else, have a huge interest in controlling AI (because they strictly control their people). And as the dominant super power, they have the most to lose from a rogue AI attacking them.

Second, the argument that "if you don't let us build a tool that will kill everyone, we can't build a tool that will help everyone" makes no logical sense. If you take nuclear power as an example, that's like arguing that we *had* to build nuclear missiles, bombs, and submarines in order to build nuclear power plants. Which is ludicrous. Sure, the technology opens both options, but building weapons is a choice.

The whole "if you regulate we'll lose" argument is mostly about the AI companies wanting to have no guardrails and be able to maximize their profit. And if everybody dies, well, oopsies.