You keep spamming this argument all over the threads; however, you're completely wrong.

First, wearing camera glasses is in no way like "having a traditional video camera on your shoulder".
Lots of people wear glasses. By contrast, very few people run around with cameras on their shoulder. Camera glasses aren't noticeable unless you pay special attention and examine everybody's glasses - especially if they're in not in your immediate proximity or not facing you at the time. By contrast, somebody with a camera on the shoulder is immediately noticeable, even if they have their back to you. Saying the two cases are the same is just silly.

Second, except for a few aficionados, nobody recognizes brands and models of glasses. Also, many people wouldn't even know Meta is selling camera glasses, or how they look. Meta glasses look very close to regular glasses, and the even the tiny recording light will not be normally seen, especially in daylight or if masked or painted over. By contrast, you don't need to recognize the brand of some camera or phone a person points at you to know you're being filmed. Saying the two cases are the same is just silly.

If the toaster has good brownness and heat-bounce sensors, I'm not sure AI is needed: just turn up or down the heat cells where needed to keep it even. Statistical analysis may be needed to manage adjacent cells, but once the formulas are known via lab testing it should be predictable.

nuf smelt.

The problem is an overly large proportion of them are creeps, and one may not be able to tell the difference.

...makes me want to buy it.

to fouling up the AI Apocalypse Prevention Act...

You will get an AI toaster and you will like it!

(Unless the damned bubble pops)

on my PC. I can't see it in Task Manager, but start getting "out of memory" errors after a couple of weeks and have to reboot. Restarting Firefox alone is insufficient to clear it. I suspect it has something to do with the graphics card rather than primary RAM, and could be co-caused with some other app.

Sorry, I made a boo boo.

They're hard to find though, because the interstellar medium of hydrogen and helium gas between the stars absorbs ultraviolet light.

It's a good thing hydrogen does that because our hydrogen atmosphere keeps us from getting big-time sun-burn.

That's a pretty shallow(thought admittedly depressingly popular) analysis of the situation.

Being in public does leave you with no particular defensible expectations of not being observed, and possibly even remembered for a time, by assorted passers by; and typically also permits more direct tailing of people for observation purposes(subject to some, often slightly vague, threshold at which having PIs or paparazzi hunting someone remains a problem even in public; as we saw here where the police took the notion seriously enough to show up but not to do anything in particular).

What it has historically never meant, for technical reasons, was pervasive coverage and longterm retention. Which is certainly increasingly feasible with only moderate levels of investment; but is absolutely a novel development for what 'public' and 'no expectation of privacy' meant.

It's like defending the installation of a massive network of sprinklers because "you have no expectation of staying dry when you go outside; haven't you heard of rain?" Sure, nobody the weather to be sunny all the time, any more than they expect everyone to avert their eyes in public; but they would correctly consider the installation of irrigation equipment on every lamppost to be an intrusion on their ability to stay dry despite the fact that the sky has never extended them a constitutionally protected right to no rain.

Training these models is incredibly expensive. In fact it's so expensive that there is no viable economic model to do so. As such, their options are either to drastically slow down the amount of new models trained or to go bankrupt. This is just a nice whitewashing of that. It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable, but we know that with the cost of training the next one they can't be.

Red light is thought to activate a regeneration mechanism within the body.

It interacts with some of the compounds in mitochondria that promotes healing and cellular recovery. It also has a biphasic effect: too little does nothing, too much does nothing, but the right amount can have therapeutic value.

A betting pool in which big-tech company will finally pop the bubble?

Maybe there is an upper practical limit to how much can be mined out of the training data? Most newer stuff is corrupted with AI generated results creating problems that some compare to inbreeding.