Oh yes, I remember. I remember that Google started to become worse and worse starting around 2018. By 2020, SEO was too damned good and ruined so much of the results. By 2024, trying to find technical info became so difficult I’d end up searching with DDG which was sometimes better.

All this was before AI slop existed.

Don’t blame AI. Blame SEO by commercial interests. They’ve been generating slop since the early 2000s. AI just makes them faster at it.

It didn’t say what companies it was. Anyone know?

For all we know it was some physics lab trying to develop fusion reactor designs.

As time goes on I feel like the concept of DRY has more applicability to compiled languages like C/C++ and Rust than interpreted ones.

From a concise coding standpoint, it’s a great idea most of the time. However—having worked with some long-term projects—I’ve found that it can create “code smells” if it’s taken a little too seriously.

For example, I’ll often see loads of tiny (Python) functions that do simple things like applying a regex. Then I’ll search the code and see that a single regex function gets called in just two places.

If that was the only time it happened, it wouldn’t be a big deal. Except I’ll see dozens of tiny functions like this at the top of many modules and be scratching my head wondering why they went to such an extreme. It makes my job as a reviewer harder because now I have to scroll all the way to the top of the script and back constantly to figure out WTF it’s doing.

Not only that, but Python doesn’t have a JIT that would optimize away those extra functions calls. Every function call in Python carries some overhead (both CPU and memory), so by dividing up your functions into dozens of little ones you’re actually slowing it down.

Normally such slowdowns are so trivial it doesn’t matter. But when someone is following DRY like some kind of religious extremist, those extra calls really can and do add up. Especially when you find them being called inside of deeply nested loops!

If Meta can’t distinguish feminist literature from prohibited content,

You misunderstand… Feminist literature is the prohibited content. I’m not making a joke here. That’s literally their policy!

Surely, encouraging your men to be misogynistic will result in more marriage and births!

So they want drones to slam into critical infrastructure. After all, if they lack obstacle avoidance…

Drones that can avoid buildings, people, and electrical wiring? NO!

Rocket-propelled Grenade-like drones? Totally fine!

Your argument boils down to this:

• This technology exists because you’ve worked with it.
• You want to ban it because it could be used by bad people to invade others privacy.
• The technology doesn’t actually exist.

You’re not making any sense.

The technology does exist and the software to do repair work with AR also exists: https://aidarsolutions.com/maintenance-augmented-reality/ (Just an example, there’s more companies that do it)

People are using AR for equipment repair every day. It would be fucking nice if every day people could take advantage of that using cheap glasses that include a camera and a display of some kind.

The only reason why there’s not open source projects for this is because the hardware is too expensive.

So you don’t trust individuals with cameras but you trust the government and businesses with them. Got it.

Get your mind out of the gutter!

Have you ever seen AR glasses demos where someone is inspecting an engine or repairing something? Imagine open source hardware projects being able to offer similar capabilities for any common household appliance. It would be amazing!

There’s infinite amazing and non-creepy uses for tech like this but it’ll never happen with unimaginative luddites everywhere!

WTF? Local models run on your local hardware without an Internet connection. Hence, they’re not giving any data to anyone except you.

Always assume you’re being recorded in public because you are. You’re not even talking about that: You’re talking about preventing normal citizens from being able to record in public. Yet government will still have that power. That’s exactly what’s going on with Flock cameras.

You can regulate sales of hidden cameras in your country, but you can’t stop their manufacture or general availability because they’re literally designed to be undetectable. Anyone can buy them online and they always will be able to.

I could design my own PCB with a tiny CCD and put together a case with whatever lens I want. In your scenario, would I require a license to order such a PCB? Like it’s a gun or something?

How would you even know that it’s meant to be a camera for recording people? It could just be an environment monitoring sensor or a security device that sounds an alarm whenever it detects motion.

You brought up the practicality of things… What you propose is highly impractical.

My stance is that there’s always going to be assholes. Trying to stop them ahead of time by banning technology won’t stop them but it will stop legitimate uses of said technology.

Regulations that would probably be fine:

• Require recording lights.
• Require shutter sounds.

…because those don’t halt the technology. They’re just mild annoyances for regular users. To me, that’s like “your car needs working headlights and tail lights.”

When I see people asking for “glasses + camera” to be outright banned my alarm bells go off. Both of these things already exist and there’s nothing stopping someone from strapping a cell phone or GoPro to their head. Banning such technology feels like burying your head in the sand because you saw someone doing something you don’t like with a technology you haven’t seen before.

I understand that. The way I see it is that the European style gives the government a monopoly on recording in public. That seems dangerous to me (an American).

I personally think it’s very important that everyone have the right to record people in public because I’ve seen people—in person—being intimidated by police to stop recording (them possibly committing a crime).

It’s a “WTF!” hands in the air situation. The police know that everyone’s allowed to record them but they just don’t care.

How does that work in Europe? You see someone committing a crime and you just keep your phone in your pocket? Because it’s against the law?

“Excuse me, sir… May I have your permission to record you beating this person to death? Thanks!”

When you’re out in public you’re in public! It’s literally the opposite of private.

Why would you expect to remain anonymous or private in such a situation?

Everyone has the right to record what’s going on, out in the open. You want to add shutter sounds and recording lights to cameras? Sure. That doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. But don’t go restricting people’s rights just because you think you’ll never have the need to record something happening right in front of you.

I can’t accept a world like this. No one has a right to privacy when out in public and especially not police who are on duty or government figures.

You’re just asking for a brutal police state with that attitude.

Note: Recording != Logging everything into a database. That’s an entirely separate issue.

Again, you’re assuming that the only thing with glasses and a camera that can exist will be sold and operated by Meta. This is not the case.

The only reason why there’s not much competition yet is the expense. Meta can sell the glasses at a discount because the wearer (and everyone/everything they look at) is what they’re actually selling.

Eventually there will be glasses running regular Linux that people can do with as they please. Then the real innovation will happen.

Don’t go out in public? Seems like you’re asking the impossible because a recording of any kind is a “face scan”.

The most direct way to antagonize food inspectors.

Ah, a true meme sommelier! As a shitpost epicurean we often don’t see eye to eye and this is one of those cases.

I find the smoothness to be an important feature for when I retire some day and work as a professional curator of low-effort-arts, as it will allow me to date the meme. It’s much easier than compression dating, which gives a rough estimate of reposts-over-time.

Your arguments are all against cameras recording people in public. That has nothing at all to do with AI. Local or not.

Local AI models do solve the privacy issue of everyone and everything being recorded, classified, and becoming permanently searchable for Meta and via any request they get from law enforcement, sketchy government entities, or anyone that’s willing to pay for it.