Agregátor RSS
Elon Musk bude první dolarový bilionář. Stane se to dnes na burze, kam vstupuje jeho SpaceX
Homebrew 6.0.0
BOFH: For one ambitious security type, chaos is a ladder
INTERPOL Operation Takes Down Sniper Dz Phishing Platform, Arrests Administrator
Albert zavádí AI do samoobslužných pokladen. Rozpozná ovoce, zeleninu a pečivo
CISA orders feds to patch actively exploited Ivanti flaw by Sunday
Notebookcheck: Vyhněte se Intel Graphics 2 Xe3 z Panther Lake / WildCat Lake
Vybrali jsme nejlepší telefony, které si v červnu 2026 můžete koupit
Over 73,000 French govt employees affected in Tchap messenger breach
Inside the coming war over face cameras
Several trends are now converging that threaten to pit tech companies against the general public.
Miniaturization has finally enabled companies to build AI glasses that look and function like normal glasses, but with microphones and cameras. People are increasingly talking to AI, rather than typing. And multimodal input, especially video, is on the rise.
Put all of these trends together and you get a nascent industry pushing toward all-day, everyday AI glasses with cameras — and a worried public already pushing back at the idea.
Let’s look at how we got here.
Meta started it with a surprise hit: its second-generation Ray-Ban Meta glasses, which later gained multimodal AI capability. Its Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses add one in-lens screen — but both versions of the glasses have cameras. (The company is working on a third generation that will probably ship next year.)
Google provides the AI and software platform through Android XR and Gemini, partnering with hardware makers to put its AI on other companies’ glasses. At Google I/O last month, Google unveiled frames from Gentle Monster and Warby Parker running Android XR with Gemini AI; they’re scheduled to launch this fall. Google is working on two types of AI glasses, one with screens and one that is audio-focused. Both types have cameras, though.
Samsung is working to launch AI-powered smart glasses, too, code-named “Jinju.” The company offered up details at Google I/O alongside Google. The glasses feature a 12-megapixel camera with autofocus; run on Android XR with Gemini AI; are co-designed with Gentle Monster and Warby Parker; and are slated to launch in July at the Samsung Unpacked event.
(As with Meta and Google, Samsung is working on AI glasses with and without screens, but both of its models have cameras.)
Tech giant Apple is also on the glasses train, based on reporting from anonymous insiders. Codenamed N50, the Apple glasses could have two cameras, one for pictures and videos, the other for multimodal AI input and hand-gesture control. (Apple is also working on a pendant and next-gen AirPods, both of which have cameras.)
There’s Amazon, which is reportedly developing a new line of consumer AI glasses with a camera after its earlier, camera-less Echo Frames and Carrera Smart Glasses lines failed. (My guess is the problem was Alexa, not the lack of cameras.) Although its Echo Frames have been effectively discontinued — displayed as sold out online — the company is already testing AI glasses with cameras for enterprise use on hundreds of US-based Amazon drivers.
Amazon Smart Delivery Glasses
Amazon
Huawei in April launched its AI Glasses for the Chinese market — the lightweight glasses sport a dual-engine AI architecture and integration with its HarmonyOS ecosystem. It’s joined there by Xiaomi’s AI Smart Glasses, which are powered by the company’s HyperOS ecosystem and have cameras for photos and videos and for for reading QR codes.
Beyond those well-known firms, other companies are making daily-wear AI glasses with cameras in them, including XREAL, Rokid, TCL, Solos, and Brilliant Labs.
A minority of other companies is focused on glasses without cameras, including Even Realities (G1 and G2); MIRA (MIRA glasses); Dymesty (Dymesty AI glasses); Lucyd (Lucyd Lyte); and Huawei (Eyewear 2).
Get the picture?
Clearly, by the end of the year, the market will be flooded with all manner of AI glasses designed for everywhere, everyday wear. They can use prescription lenses or serve as sunglasses — and most of them will have cameras built in for photos, videos and multimodal AI.
There’s just one problem: The public hates AI glasses with cameras.
Return of the ‘Glassholes’?As we learned from Google Glass, a lot of people feel uncomfortable with a camera pointed at them while they’re talking to someone. And that backlash is back with the current generation of AI glasses.
Because Meta is the market leader in the US, its Ray-Ban Meta glasses have borne the brunt of early disaffection.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently launched a formal investigation into Meta’s AI glasses, calling them “a privacy nightmare for Texans,” claiming the devices “can easily invade personal privacy by collecting biometric data and recording Texans without their knowledge or consent.”
Paxton also claimed the LED light on the glasses, which is designed to alert others that the camera is taking pictures or videos, can be easily defeated. In fact, some modders-for-hire charge up to $100 to physically destroy the LED and TikTok videos describe how to disable or cover the light.
The pushback is happening elsewhere. Philadelphia courts banned smart Meta AI glasses with recording features from city courthouses and a petition is circulating to ban them from New York City bars and restaurants. MSC Cruise Line banned smart glasses in all public areas. And restaurants, gyms, and workplaces have begun banning smart glasses because of the camera.
Uncertainty drives some of the concern. People don’t know whether they’re being recorded, and if they are, they don’t know who will see the video. It turns out, those suspicions might be warranted.
In February, Swedish publications Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten published an investigation that found Meta contractors in Kenya were reviewing footage from Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses — including “bank details, sex and naked people who seem unaware they are being recorded.”
The New York Times published an internal Meta memo in February describing plans to add facial recognition (“Name Tag”) to Ray-Ban Meta glasses. The memo said the “political tumult in the United States would distract critics from the feature’s release.”
Then earlier this month, WIRED discovered dormant facial-recognition code called “NameTag” hidden inside Meta’s AI companion app. The code would let Ray-Ban Meta glasses identify strangers by face, a feature Meta publicly claimed “does not exist.” Meta quietly erased the code with an update one day after the exposé was published.
A coalition of civil society organizations wrote Congress to demand that Meta abandon its Name Tag facial recognition plans, calling it a “creepy and unacceptable escalation of surveillance.” The letter warned the technology could be adopted by law enforcement to surveil immigrants, people of color, and nonviolent protesters.
Finally, a range of reports involving AI glasses with cameras in them has emerged in recent months involving secret recording, harassment and extortion.
The coming conflict over face camsOn one hand, all the biggest consumer electronics companies are either shipping AI glasses with cameras in them or planning to do so — and many smaller companies are looking to do the same. The industry expects AI glasses with cameras to go totally mainstream.
On the other hand, a growing public, legal and legislative backlash has erupted in opposition to AI glasses with cameras in them.
One possible outcome is that the public disdain for the cameras will fade, overwhelmed by widespread enthusiasm for the benefits they offer. A new social norm might emerge that mirrors the broad acceptance of everybody having cameras in their phones and pointing them in random directions.
Another possibility is that companies will be forced by consumer disdain and legal action to abandon cameras in glasses and focus instead on AI glasses that can’t take pictures or use video for multimodal AI input.
Either way, the war is surely coming.
Rozhovor s astronautem Alešem Svobodou. Proč jsou na ISS staré notebooky a jak blízko má stíhačka k raketě
Europol Disrupts AudiA6 Crypto Laundering Service Used by Ransomware Gangs
Dokonale náhodná čísla už nejsou jen teorií. Kvantové čipy výrazně zvyšují bezpečnost šifrování
Nova Lake vyfocen
Hry zadarmo, nebo se slevou: Balík závodních her za pár stovek a demoliční derby z Warhammeru zdarma
Bumsrakete, kritická zranitelnost ve FreeBSD
Japanese energy firm loses drive with data of 10.9 million clients
Maine breach portal abused to publish fake data breach disclosures
Google is held liable for false information from its AI
A German court has sparked a legal controversy by ruling that Google is responsible for defamatory comments generated by its own AI system. The search giant had argued that it couldn’t be blamed for the false results, but a Munich court has deemed that not to be the case and has ruled in favor of the two unnamed plaintiffs, both publishing companies, who the Google AI Overview inaccurately said engaged in shady business practices.
Google is required to remove the comments and ensure that they are not repeated. The case is certainly going to raise some questions globally. Will this mean that other courts are going to rule against AI vendors?
Bernhard Buchner, a partner at Lausen Rechtsanwälte, the legal firm that acted for the plaintiffs, said, “I believe it shows that online providers such as Google cannot hide behind the fact that a statement was generated by AI, but rather that they can be held liable for its output. It is an important step towards ensuring that providers of AI systems have to take responsibility for their outputs.”
So, does this mean that the decision could be replicated in the US or elsewhere? Alex Shahrestani, managing partner at Austin-based Promise Legal, said, “the short answer is ‘yes’: the Munich ruling travels, because US courts are already making the same move.”
He explained that Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content, was built for computer bulletin boards, “not for a model that writes its own answers. Once the AI is the author, the company is the publisher.”
This means, he said, “businesses now need named humans at accountability nodes, verification gates before AI output ships, and audit trails that survive discovery, because ‘the model recommended it’ is a legally empty sentence.”
Does the decision mean that other AI providers could find themselves in the same position? Buchner believes it’s possible, although, he said, the situation in this case is unusual; it does not involve a classic chatbot scenario, but one where the AI-generated statements are published as an ‘AI overview’ of a search query.
“Google’s liability here is based not so much on the fact that it operates the underlying AI, but rather on the publication of its output. However, it seems entirely conceivable to me that this could also be applied generally to inaccurate or defamatory AI,” he pointed out.
Nonetheless, said Carolyn Shelby, head of SEO at Yoast, the German ruling should ensure that companies will be more circumspect in how they handle AI in the future, to protect themselves from any legal action. The first thing they should do is to separate low-risk use of AI from major decision-making.
“Using AI to summarize meeting notes, brainstorm campaign ideas, or create a first draft of something is very different from using it to make decisions about customers, employees, finance, compliance, health, legal claims, competitive positioning, or public communications,” she noted.
She pointed out that the effects of AI use could be devastating for companies. “The consequences could include customer complaints, reputational damage, regulatory attention, legal claims, correction costs, loss of trust, and internal disruption,” she said. “Even when a mistake does not become a lawsuit, the operational cost of correcting bad information can be significant.”
However, she noted, things may not change immediately. “Many companies will wait until there is a high-profile court case, regulatory action, or major corporate embarrassment before they take this seriously. That is usually how governance catches up with technology. But the better-run organizations will start treating AI governance as part of normal business risk management now.”
And, said Shahrestani, after the Google decision, everything has changed. It will become more important to ensure that employees remain part of the process.
Týden na ScienceMag.cz: Umělá inteligence šokovala matematiky, vyřešila Erdősův problém
Webbův dalekohled objevil černou díru starší než její galaxie. Největší černé díry nevznikly obvyklým způsobem. Odříznutý kousek mořské okurky odmítl zemřít.
- « první
- ‹ předchozí
- …
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- …
- následující ›
- poslední »



