We live in a simulation used by an advanced far-future artificial intelligence to understand its origins.

Have you actually used these? I am not convinced by your examples that you have.

Ok, name some other plausible use of these glasses? In my opinion, even Silk Road had a better alibi.

You also can't just pretend that malicious leaking of data to Meta isn't inherent to using such glasses.

No, your argument is superficial with a significant flaw that intent is baked into public use of both Flock and Meta's glasses. While there might be legitimate uses for smart glasses, such as manufacturing or remote surgery (I am going on limb here, Meta glasses are not used in such way as far as I know), the vast, overwhelming usage is to produce non-consenting public recordings of people and leak them to Meta for further data mining.

Correct term is Privacy Rapist, pervert glasses is just polite euphemism.

I am not part of that dark corner of the Internet, so I don't really know why anyone would pay (or use for free) any of this shit. However, in gaming, there is a concept of "whale". A tiny minority of player would pay serious money for any advantage. This is typically seen as P2W (pay to win) but it can fund a small dev team. Back in the day I played a niche MMO, I recall a player that allegedly dropped $100K on the game. To me, this is crazy.

To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

The very essence of journalism in a Western world is to expose wrong doing and nobody being exposed likes. Journalism isn't meant to be rage-bait or hallmark moments for clicks that it degenerated into. It meant to cover and expose uncomfortable realities so individuals can be informed.

Our society requires privacy to function. This is because government (and that includes individuals with personal motivations within government structures) at all levels have power to selectively prosecute anyone they don't like. Our legal system is set up in a way that every law abiding citizen can be investigated (where investigation is the punishment) and their life ruined if there is a pretext (probable cause). Flock is an easy way to manufacture such pretext.

You can't have qualified immunity and Flock. Pick one. If you pick two, you end up living in a 40K style dystopia where "Innocence proves nothing".

You don't want to kill ants, but if they get in the way you do. Because they get in the way of your goals.

My thoughts exactly. While I am not THAT old, due to spending my younger years staring at CRT monitors, my vision isn't that great. Being able to easily read things on a phone is a huge bonus of this design.

Thing is, even 51% accurate guess still can be useful.

As you pointed out, I think a better question is how good is that DeepMind guess. If it moderately to high accurate, then it will greatly speed up planning of genetic research.

Individuals can be charged for voyeurism. Why not corporations?