Well, if that is how you manage other hazards in the home, then yes.
I would recommend another approach though. We decided for making changes to our home to allow our toddler to be safe in our home environment without being notably constrained.
While I agree we'll see millions of bipedal robots, it won't be because they're doing our chores. People will buy them for the same reason I'd want one today: They're fun toys.
Even though today's robots are vastly more sophisticated, the progress of the last decade shows we shouldn't expect a sudden revolution in their abilities over the next ten years. As is often the case, solving those final few challenges that really make a difference always takes the longest.
That's not a robot problem, that's a toddler problem.
We don't leave our young toddlers to roam freely around the house for a reason. Our homes are full of hazards to these risk-seeking small people and a robot is just one more on the list.
If the edges of the screen are further from your eyes than the center, the content and text doesn't appear at the same size. If you wear glasses, the edges might even fall out of focus unless you physically move closer.
It's basically a failure of setting up the proper response playbook.
Instead of:
1. AI detects gun on surveillance
2. Dispatch armed police to location
It should be:
1. AI detects gun on surveillance
2. Human reviews the pictures and verifies the threat
3. Dispatch armed police to location
I think the latter version is likely what already took place in this incident, and it was actually a human that also mistook a bag of Doritos for a gun.
But that version of the story is not as interesting, I guess.
With per-per-minute sharing cars having existed in many cities in Europe 10+ years, this concept is not new.
People will adapt to the level of cleanliness in the car the get into, so it's a slippery slope. Users will behave respectfully in the early days (maybe because they are first-movers), and then it deteriorates long term.
My own experience is that people used to not even leave an empty soda bottle in the cars and now I see remains from take-out in the floor, coffee cups, chewing gum left around the dashboard etc. You can report this to the car service, but they won't be able to take any meaningful action on it.
Users are playing around with AIs for entertainment all the time. You wouldn't be able to determine if seemingly private information was real or made up.
Sharing to a text message is private. In contrast, sharing to social media platforms such as Twitter, Reddit, Pinterest, and LinkedIn makes the content public. The destination determines the audience.
People share AI chats all the time on Twitter, Reddit, etc.
I don't personally think the feature makes a lot of sense in Meta AI.
However it's a lot more likely their product team genuinely thought it might do, than it is likely they intentionally wanted to give users a bad experience and risk more bad press (again, Meta would benefit nothing from people sharing by mistake).
I don't think this is a dark-pattern problem in the sense that I don't think it is _intentionally_ deceiving.
I think Meta fully expected this feature to be used by people who are excited about their conversation with the AI and wants to share it publicly. Just like we see with OpenAI Sora.
There's not much to win for Meta if users instead are unknowingly sharing deeply personal conversations.
If only he had known he could simply use his laptop to train them.