Smart glasses are only smart if we train them to be good. Then they'll be fantastic The most sobering observation in tech is not how much AI is taking on the appearance of the human mind. It's how much the human mind increasingly resembles Windows – not in functionality, although we all know that person, but in the way it crufts up and loses compatibility after years without an upgrade or reboot. We start shiny …
> Augmented reality has its own spectrum, from the ghastly to the essential, even when you peel back the techbro hype
Er, what? Since when did we have an example where Augmented Reality is "essential"? I guess maybe for the people who absolutely MUST play Pokemon Go, because they are er, addicted to the damn thing? No, I'd say the spectrum ranges from the ghastly to the quaint curiosity, at best.
I get the point about "making the blind see" - my dad is 95% blind, but nevertheless he wouldn't be seen dead in these faust-glasses. He's 77, and most of his blindness has come around in the last 5 years, through progressive glaucoma. He's tried the "Seeing AI" app on his phone, but finds it infuriating/useless because it picks out mostly-irrelevant things and reads constantly. Having it strapped to his face would absolutely NOT replace the sight that he has lost.
The problem is that they don't actually "make the blind see" - they turn some gargantuan datacentre owned and operated by a creepy wanker in a bunker into an all-seeing-eye, which then tells the blind some of what it can "see". It's like having the devil on your shoulder and trusting him to tell you what is in front of you, while he spies on everyone around you.
Those who object to the faust-glasses do not object to the idea of the blind guy being able to "see", they object to the intrusion of zuckercorp's all-seeing eye into their private spaces. If it were possible for these things to be 100% local on-device, without storage and provably so (which of course is both technologically and economically infeasible) then nobody would object to them - but nobody except the blind would buy them either.
You can't compare them to dogs. A dog really IS 100% local "on-device" intelligence and it cannot record video. So we don't object to them. I would object to a cloud-connected "robot guide dog" for the same reason as I object to zuck's wanker-goggles. It's an extension of surveillance, it causes tech dependence and with it a "technology trap". I.e. what happens to the users when their newly-"essential" piece of tech suddenly becomes unavailable? Who cares, says Zuck.
If a technology which is entirely controlled by a third-party is allowed to become "essential", then we become enslaved by it, i.e. we become Cory Doctorow's "Reverse Centaur".
If there were smart glasses that were:
- relatively unattractive and not camouflaged, eg boxy, and white so the camera lenses were visible
- said "Sight Aid" on the sides
- officially certified as being unable to record or transmit to another device
- cable connected to a belt-mounted battery-and-processor box with no wireless connectivity
- only available from registered healthcare professionals
then we might be able to trust them. Anything less is just not safe enough.
You do run the risk of them being the digital equivalent of the horrible horn-rimmed NHS specs that me and all the other uncool nerds had to endure to correct our eyesight back in the 70s and 80s. And how many of us lost or damaged those things - and lived lesser lives because of that - because we were forced to wear Kick Me signs on our faces?
"You do run the risk of them being the digital equivalent of the horrible horn-rimmed NHS specs that me and all the other uncool nerds had to endure to correct our eyesight back in the 70s and 80s. And how many of us lost or damaged those things - and lived lesser lives because of that - because we were forced to wear Kick Me signs on our faces?"
Whilst being in that group, it is amusing to note that when the NHS first selected the design it was fashionable, and it is again today, for example as Ray-Ban Wayfairers. But yes, in the intermediate years it was a sign of a mockable physical deficiency and of being too poor to afford private eyecare.
Colin wrote an interesting piece on this for Accessibility Day: https://www.theregister.com/ai-ml/2026/05/21/apple-adds-ai-smarts-to-voice-control-voiceover-and-magnifier-ahead-of-accessibility-day/5243594
IIUC, plenty of stuff I'd hesitate to touch with a barge pole ATM (eg. agentic AI claws and LLMs) can actually be useful to folks with various everyday challenges.
And now that we can run a full-fledged AI (so-called) LLM on a $10 ESP32, one has to wonder what might be done with a "belt-mounted battery-and-processor box", say a "Synaptics-Google Coralboard Edge AI Platform" for example, in terms of something useful for accessibility (rather than to get one's rocks off) -- and do so in a properly safe manner [ https://www.embedded.com/synaptics-google-showcase-coralboard-edge-ai-platform/ ].
Smart glasses certainly don't replace sight, but if you're missing sight, that or similar tech is sometimes the closest you can get. I am a blind person, I don't own these or any similar glasses, but I understand why others do and I've done similar things to what I would use these for. For example, I recently used a video call to a friend to help navigate an unfamiliar area. I did that on a phone, but having the camera mounted on my head would have helped because I would then have one hand free (one hand is using a cane). That's not what having sight is like, but the alternative is trying to navigate the area without assistance, which in this case would have been quite difficult.
There are a lot of problems caused by these devices, but we don't solve them by pretending that those who are getting benefits from them really aren't. For example, the Seeing AI app you mention does indeed read pretty much whatever text it finds anywhere in the field of view, meaning it's often reading stuff you don't care about. However, it does that intentionally because, if you don't know where the text is, limiting itself to the thing directly in front of the camera means a lot of time spent hunting for text to read. Using it effectively takes practice about camera positioning to locate and then focus on the text of interest. If we decide that the risks of unwanted recording are high enough that we're willing to deny people those benefits, that's a defensible position. It is one reason I haven't obtained any smart glasses. If we deny the benefits exist to make our argument easier, that is not.
"I know someone who refused a couple with a ‘helper dog’ entry to a festival"
There's too many people that buy a "service dog" vest on Amazon so they can bring their yappy little bug-eyed rat dog into the grocery with them. I expect that a dog would be unhappy at a music festival and may not be that happy at other sorts of large gatherings due to the crowds.
While I believe it's important that real service animals can be taken most places, there should be places where they aren't allowed and shops required to provide more assistance to those people in their place. I know that most hotels that allow animals also have rooms that aren't available to those traveling with them. Allergies can be quite serious and the smell of wet dog can be hard to neutralize.
...but a pub trying the same thing would get short shrift.
I dunno, Sam Smiths gave it a bloody good try. Not, it must be said for the best of reasons, the owner was kind of a dick. Maybe they'll give up on that nonsense now he's dead, but it didn't seem to stop people drinking there.
Not the glasses, just the buggers wearing them.
I can imagine a tiny wearable video camera that perforce must follow the wearer's gaze might be useful for creating instructional videos (thinking surgeon, mechanic, artist or crafts·person … not so much sexual techniques but hell I am not a wowser.)
The fundamental issue is filming individuals in public places without their knowledge of consent - whether it is a camera concealed in glasses, in a pen poking out of the shirt (or suit) pocket, in a broach, scarf or tie pin etc.
The law in many jurisdictions deals with gross violations of decency and of the strong expectations of privacy as the lost soul who placed a camera in his shoe's toe to record women's underwear from beneath their skirts when travelling on an escalator, found out. He might have been disappointed if they were all going commando that day.
How ought a society deals with those who grossly transgress its expectations of decent behaviour is the essential question here. No single cut·and·dry answers… never are wilth humans. The chap with his shoe·cam – give him a Victoria's Secret gift certificate and tell him to bugger off ?
I recall a several years ago some nonsense about synthetic textiles being IR transparent (the bollocks merchants probably meant UV) and that the cameras in phones are sensitive to IR (true: you can test whether your tv's remote is working with your phone.) After a while this nonsense was reabsorbed into the vacuum – partly in our climate natural fibres are preferred and when it is hot the bright young things don't actually wear much in the way of clothing.
I imagine the consternation over Zuck's glasshole spectacles will also collapse into the void. It is bit of a nuisance now if you wear prescription glasses with photochromic (transition) lenses as they do resemble Zuck's mechandise and when they lighten quite rapidly away from sunlight they look "active."
> I recall a several years ago some nonsense about synthetic textiles being IR transparent (the bollocks merchants probably meant UV) and that the cameras in phones are sensitive to IR
The bollocks-merchants in question were probably talking about far-infrared (thermal IR) which CMOS and CCD cameras are NOT sensitive to. You'd need a Thermal Imaging Camera, and the resolution on those is, er, pants.
AI glasses would be fine if they were produced by an ethical company that was only interested in making a fair profit per pair while helping people. They would have no motivation to enable nudification and facial recognition. They'd help people see the world. That's sort of the caricature that comes to mind when people talk about the virtues of capitalism.
Of course, investor capitalism will never stand for this sort of company, because it's desire for a fair profit per glasses would not provide an avenue for explosive company growth, fueling increasing stock process. Meta actually likes the negative publicity about their glasses. It helps their stock prices. The combination of smart glasses + tech bro AI company + social media is the problem.
The invisible hand could just do with a nudge.
Make the glasses just like a car (you need insurance). The insurance goes to pay all the claims of the injured party. It cant be a he said they said because theres recordings or evidence of no recording (you bought the glasses with the option to record. Everyone hates you so youre gonna have to have a notarised audit trail that you werent recording)
If you wear the glasses. You have no presumption of innocence (you are defaulted to the status of the driver of the car behind).
Yes i know its a silly idea with no legs. Im throwing it out there as a thought xperiment.
facial recognition is the one thing I'd want these glasses for. The thing that horrifies me is that apparently there are apps that can use the facial recognition to identify random individuals from the image alone. But that's not a glasses exclusive thing. The problem's not local – it's in the network. Maybe it is the network.
"The problem's not local – it's in the network. Maybe it is the network."
There's your value proposition for the FB's and Flocks of the world. They could sell services to the filth and just walking around in crowds scanning people would strip them of their anonymity. More location data points for Skynet.
"AI glasses would be fine if they were produced by an ethical company that was only interested in making a fair profit per pair while helping people."
They are fiddly to make so to get the price down to reasonable, they have to sell loads. The numbers wouldn't work out if they were just sold on prescription. What takes a prescription in one country can be purchased over the counter elsewhere. I don't know if they could train sniffer dogs to find them in packages as they'd smell just like every other piece of electro-mechnical tat being shipped from China. Drugs, firearms and currency are much more distinct although new firearms are more difficult.
There is no possible way to redeem a device that non-consensually and secretively points a camera at people. Remove the camera and maybe we'll talk.
It is not at all surprising that Zuckerberg does not understand this given that the original premise of Facebook was to non-consensually "rate" the hotness of women who would not go out with him or his dorky friends, and that everything that has happened in Facebook since then has demonstrated an equal disregard for privacy or respect for the individual.
It's also worth bearing in mind that Zuckerberg would not be where he is today had there not been enough people perfectly comfortable with that original model of Facebook -- provided of course it wasn't pointed at them.
Exactly this. If you would not be happy with a stranger stressing there with a phone video recording you then you will not be ok with someone doing the same with "smart" glasses, except now you might not know it's happening. I can't see any beneficial outcome from this tech as it's currently presented.
...is that Meta decides that displaying ads in the glasses is the way to make the business model work, and that turns off even the kinds of creeps who would buy these things.
I hope that it is only a matter of time, since to the Zuck we are never the customer, always the product.
It’s the entire ecosystem.
Meta has serious prior invasions of privacy via data collection.
They are not to be trusted.
The reality is it’s been possible to secretly film for decade's. That doesn’t make the activity right, anything but, however it requires more skill than touching the frame of a pair of glasses and generally isn’t hooked up to data servers and LLMs.
In India workers are being paid extra to wear cameras whilst doing menial tasks, with the data being collected to assist with robotics advancement - look it up, it’s happening.
In the west glassholes are paying for the “privilege” of doing the same. You are the product. Thanks for your data!
Will this backlash continue?
I really hope the disdain for this kind of thing grows and we all start seriously trying to decouple ourselves from big tech and their spyware devices.
People who believe they are under constant scrutiny typically become more self-conscious, conformist, and cautious. The mere perception of being watched (even without continuous actual monitoring) is enough to alter behavior, cognition, and emotional state
Shoshana Zuboff: “In The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” (2019): “Surveillance capitalism unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material.” “It is no longer enough to automate information flows about us; the goal now is to automate us.”
Jeremy Weissman: “The Crowdsourced Panopticon” (2021): “. . . the Panopticon broken free of [its] physical architecture” writes Weissman “. . . is a paranoiac delusion made reality as anyone may potentially be watching at any time—at least as soon as one steps foot out the front door. . .”
Bruce Schneier: “AI surveillance is being supercharged” (2026)
“People who believe they are under constant scrutiny typically become more self-conscious, conformist, and cautious. The mere perception of being watched (even without continuous actual monitoring) is enough to alter behavior, cognition, and emotional state ”
And obey their deity’s literature.
*Real Guide Dogs go through proper, accredited training, they wear a bright harness to clearly mark themselves from normal pet dogs. They provide a useful service to those who need them, and I'd be happy to accommodate them in public spaces, because I know they're safe.
And then you have fake service dogs, wearing the same fluorescent harness, but they growl, snap, urinate indoors and sell your likeness on to Meta.
Which one is that guy wearing as he stares you down in the shop?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g369y5k8ko
The creep wear glasses have to go,
These are extremely invasive creepy and humans are notorious at finding new means to abuse shame and demean others with them,
especially as they are getting affordable such as Kmart Australia’s Anko $99 duel camera creep wear offering,
I’ve already seen and personally witnessed issues with unwanted recording in our business which made staff and customers uncomfortable not to mention numerous other videos on instagram and TikTok,
They should be banned before it’s too late
Wearer must don a cap with a rotating orange light.
Wear a hi-vis coat with the words “PLONKER” written on it. Front and back.
Carry a bullhorn and announce “PLONKER COMING THROUGH” on repeat.
A man walking in front with a red lantern or flag is also recommended.
Getting celebrities to endorse and normalise the perv glasses is part of it, and even if the terms don't allow for using your footage now, they'll do the old bait & switch and have a "if you don't opt out you allow us to mine your video footage for our own purposes".
The security agencies will have a backdoor to allow for hotmicing the glasses and turning on the video without your knowledge and you basically become a mobile data collection resource for these awful tech companies.
And for what? So you get some augmented reality that you didn't even need in the first place?
Grow up and realise that this is just a way for tech companies to use your sight for their own AI data mining/training.
They should be paying you to wear these stupid things.
This is an opinion from a man who has not been targeted for random filming-as-harassment before, and has never had to think about such a possibility. It's not a problem for him, therefore it's not a problem. Compassion for other people? Seeing things from their point of view? Accepting that some groups of people will have had different experiences? Of course not, opponents of smart glasses are just overemotional and scared of change.
*This* is a comment from someone who has not faced visual impairment issues. It's not a problem for him, therefore it's not a problem. Compassion for other people? Seeing things from their point of view? Accepting that some groups of people will have had different experiences? Of course not, people with a nuanced opinion of smart glasses are just overemotional and demand change.
I saw some footage of a bloke asking women out using these glasses in the UK, and then posting the footage online. They should gather and sue the maker of the glasses for privacy invasion ( might be tricky to prove because the user is at fault)
he did metaverse and missed, portal video calling which ended, NFT and ended, crypto (libre/diem/Novi/Shutdown) the last project was the outcome, possibly followed by these glasses
Currently meta being sued by numerous states for violation of children's privacy. Something similar will happen with these glasses, and it's good to sue the fuck out of zuck and dump this meta shit and start again with something/someone more sane.
I have an app on my phone called Nearby Glasses which detects proximal Bluetooth LE activity above a specifiable threshold. Whether this is effective or not I do not know - but at least there is a possibility of not being completely unaware that some doofus is using these things somewhere around us.
Then you just have to find the guy wearing nerdy-looking glasses before selecting your assault victim [kidding!]
Downsides: you do have to run the app and it is somewhat battery-intensive because Bluetooth has to be enabled.
