Login
You're viewing the assemblag.es public feed.

Replies

  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:34 PM

    @elettrona so, if we want trustworthy devices like these out in the public space, we need to tackle these issues.

    And the way to tackle them is to, first, recognize and acknowledge that Meta and its ilk do not deserve our trust, and by extension devices made by them do not deserve our trust.

    Then we should talk regulation. We can start with properly audited, including software, devices certified by independent third parties.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:36 PM

    @elettrona privacy advocates and disability rights advocates, I feel, have a lot in common. Making sure electronic devices that can record audio and video and are present in the public sphere – yes, I am broadening this here to devices other than just smart glasses – are safe and trustworthy is in our common interest.

    I dread any framing that pits us against one another. Any such framing benefits only one side: Meta and other irresponsible, untrustworthy tech companies.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
  • Elena Brescacinelettrona@poliversity.it
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:46 PM

    @rysiek That's what I always say: disability advocacy and privacy advocacy must work together. It is not a should, it's a must. It's becoming mandatory, because we claim our privacy rights even before technology. Because if a sighted person can experience a hidden relationship, for example, a blind can't, because they have to rely on a sighted to drive them to any place. And maybe stay and meet the other person, especially if they meet in very crowded places such as railway station and similar.
    A blind woman can not take a home-test for pregnancy, because they are just visual. Same applies to self-tests for covid, HIV, and whatever.
    Technology can help, but among anti-glasses and anti-big tech movement, I generally have not felt any proposal, concrete sustainable technology proposal, except for "you could go back to when AI and glasses didn't exist". Thanks, stupid folks, that's not the way. There are many reasons Meta and all multi-national corps are not trustworthy. Even in the everyday usage for blind users. But we have no long-term reliable alternatives. My very first pair of glasses, coming from the European Envision Technologies, in December will gradually stop working because Envision is shutting down at the end of this year.
    We also could consider Agiga Echo vision and Fovionics, dedicated to blind users. But with Meta as a high competitor, what could we as blind users expect from dedicated companies, in long-term? Been fooled once, there'll not be a second time.

    💬 2🔄 3⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:52 PM

    @elettrona as far as the AI hype is concerned, I cannot wait for the bubble to pop – as I believe we will then finally start getting much more useful, much more sustainable, and much more trustworthy solutions based on smaller locally-run models.

    Meta's monopolistic stranglehold on a bunch of different types of devices and services is killing valuable innovation that can change people's lives for the better.

    This is where public institutions must step in. But they won't unless we push for it.

    💬 3🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:54 PM

    @elettrona one thing to push for is regulation that improves the trustworthiness of these devices. They should be considered medical devices and regulated as such, I believe.

    But the other side of this is there needs to be support – including financial support – for the kinds of companies you mentioned.

    The market will not solve this.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:57 PM

    @elettrona and third, such devices need to be supported and supportable for years to come. This is also something that regulation can and should help with.

    Right to repair is obviously not a silver bullet, but it *is* an important element of the solution, I believe. Devices abandoned by original manufacturers could be then supported by third parties, for example. It opens a lot of possibilities.

    And if this becomes a general requirement, Meta has nothing on that.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Elena Brescacinelettrona@poliversity.it
    Oct 10, 2026, 8:57 PM

    @rysiek I think so, as well: AI can't last still long, at least the cloud form. I'd like something local, that I even can customize and train as I want it to do. I'm completely with you regarding Meta, in fact I searched every possible glasses solution to avoid it. But in the end, it's the only working solution (at least partially working) in my native language -italian-.

    My other pair, the Solos Glasses branded by Envision, will continue working when Envision shuts down at the end of this year. They will work with their native Solos AI app, but it just supports English, Chinese and few other languages. Except for Italian. And if I need an aid, it should semplify my existence, not make me think of which language I must speak.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:03 PM

    @elettrona absolutely. We're all navigating a malicious, hostile tech landscape while just trying our best to survive.

    But there are reasons why that landscape is as hostile as it is, and the companies get to be as malicious as they are. And there are ways to change that, long term.

    Thank you for engaging, and thank you for your original post in this thread. Conversations like these give me hope we can find solutions that work for us all.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Robert KingettWeirdWriter@caneandable.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 10:04 PM

    Same! I'd love it if the bubble could pop sooner so we could get some ethical, smaller, local, models. The privacy backlash *is* directed at the companies that make these. I'd recommend reading some coverage of the anti-glasses points in mainstream media. @rysiek @elettrona

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Robert KingettWeirdWriter@caneandable.social
    Oct 11, 2026, 1:36 AM

    @rysiek I am curious, because I follow a lot of international RSS feeds and all the RSS feeds that are outside of my country anyway are very pro LLM, so if you have anything written in English, I would love to see it. By the way there was an individual that translated one of my things to French. If you wanted to translate any of my anything, no pressure, sightlessscribbles.com/reprint

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 11, 2026, 9:26 AM

    @WeirdWriter my mainstream pieces is mostly in Polish, or example:
    oko.press/chatgpt-cala-prawda-
    oko.press/ai-nie-rozwiaze-kryz
    krytykapolityczna.pl/swiat/ibm

    Here's my English piece on "AI" and the job market in Iceland:
    grapevine.is/feature/2026/06/2

    And I write a bunch about this on my blog, for example:
    rys.io/en/180.html
    rys.io/en/181.html
    rys.io/en/182.html

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Howard Cohenhoco@sfba.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:19 PM

    @elettrona @rysiek Thank you for writing this. I agree 100%

    Some technologies are dangerous in the hands of someone willing to abuse it. For example, cars. We've had a method of regulating their use for a long time. A driver's license is required. You can't get a driver's license if you are legally blind.

    How about an AI glasses license. Someone automatically qualifies for this license if they are legally blind or have a similar disability that the glasses help with, and abled people have to pass a test and can be held accountable for misuse?

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:22 PM

    @hoco @elettrona that assumes the issue is with the person using the device (as in the case of a car) and not the company that manufactures it and retains control over it (as in the case of smart glasses).

    Which is not the core issue. The core issue is the untrustworthiness of the device vendor.

    But a car analogy does make sense here, it just needs to be modified a bit. It's not about a "license" to use them, it's about the certification they are safe to be used in public. Like cars are.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:25 PM

    @hoco @elettrona in other words, instead of creating hurdles for blind and visually impaired people who need these devices to improve their lives, we should focus on making devices themselves trustworthy and reliable, through an auditing and certification process.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦rysiek@mstdn.social
    Oct 10, 2026, 9:29 PM

    @hoco I do wonder, though, what would @elettrona say to an idea of making these devices stand out more to anyone else in public, labeling them clearly as medical devices.

    I think there are pros and cons of this.

    Pros: easier to make people less suspicious of someone wearing them when they are clearly labeled (kind of like with guide dogs).

    Cons: that can still be stigmatizing to blind and visually impaired people wearing them.

    I don't have the lived experience to weigh these correctly.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0