Replacing a human tutor with an AI that will wildly hallucinate is wrong, and will directly contribute to the dumbing down of society that people here often bemoan.
This is the equivalent of "parenting" by putting a kid in front of YouTube Kids for half the day
Some 5 year olds could use a human tutor. Giving them AI instead is no different than plopping them in front of "Youtube Kids" instead of being a parent.
A huge number of disputes in the world are "he said-she said", in that there are no hard records and in those cases, might often makes right (the richest opponent will have the most ability to game the system).
I think there should be a legal distinction between a system that records only for locally-based analysis (or things as simple as personal GPS tracking for maps purposes), and throws the data away, and a system that is recording audio and video to storage. I think a 30-second rolling buffer should be allowed so that a user can press a button to document exactly what's happening without missing so much of the initial conflict reason (although that time value is arguable, maybe even a minute is fine as long as it's a rolling RAM-only buffer, and with proper legal protections to where police shouldn't be able to get that RAM data without the owner of the glasses having initiated recording, which would write the buffer to storage then continue recording from there).
If the user presses the "save the buffer and start saving video+audio from here" then I think automatically the law should require there be a visible indicator of recording. 1980s camcorders had a "recording" LED on the front (you could cover it, but that's not the manufacturer's fault).
If the copyright industry wants to draw a distinction between "streaming" and "downloading" (when both are very much technically the same action, just with software on the receiving end that refuses to do a single action that would differentiate the two) then there should also be a difference between "buffering video for processing and possible future recording" and "actively recording video to storage in real time".
I think these type of devices do have legitimate value outside of the problematic ones. I just wish there was a way to construct a legal framework where such devices could be legally used in a self-defensive way but could also be an aggravating factor for things that are already considered crimes)
Maybe they're using an accelerometer to detect the angle (and possibly even distance from the user, if they can, like if you turn the camera on close to you then move it away) to crop into a sensor that's otherwise exactly like a point and shoot. The image in the site appears to show a transparent classic reflective LCD panel as the viewfinder (like the type you'd see in a basic calculator, without the reflective background), and the camera is ever so slightly above the panel. The math probably isn't that hard for someone trained in how all this works.
Bull. That's passing the buck. The cops have a moral responsibility to do their job and not offload it to an AI that is known to hallucinate far more than a non-impaired, trained human.
"I was just following instructions" has been the excuse of every single low-level worker of authoritarian and abusive societies. It wasn't valid then, and it's not valid now.
Ruin the whole lot's life the way they tried to ruin this woman. At least ruin the relevant authority figures. Maybe the individual on-site officers should be spared, but the chief? Throw them out on their ass.
As far as Flock? At this point, they are fully an agent of the state and should be just as liable for Consitutional violations as the whole of the government.
Massive violation of rights. Flock should be shut down and their c-suite sent to prison. The cops that made this massive series of blunders should also be fired and blackballed nation-wide.
Words like "buy" "own" and "purchase" have a specific connotation. These licenses upend that.
I am part of the Rock Band video game community. That scene is covered in the use of "buy" "own" "purchase" terminology. Now, granted, Harmonix went above and beyond when it came to ensure they had solid licenses, so even though today they've been delisting DLC because their original license to distribute the songs to new customers has begun lapsing, they also went way above and beyond to ensure that people who bought content in the Rock Band 1 days would still be able to play them across the whole same-console library, so much so that anyone who bought RB1/2/3 content on either Xbox 360 or PS3 were able to also play those songs on Rock Band 4 on Xbone and PS4. I think there might have been a small fee in some instances, like when exporting disc content to newer games, but outside of that they went far beyond what most companies do when handling licensing (and this is music licensing, one of the most notoriously hairy forms of licensing that one can do).
These licenses are also re-downloadable by anyone who "bought" them, at least until the platforms entirely shut down the legacy console access for re-download of content that was paid for. Fortunately, we as a community also have all of it preserved without the DRM in preparation for the day when you can no longer even re-download content you paid for. There are also tools that let you copy the content files directly from your console (where possible with or without mods) and convert or decrypt them yourself.
Yes, I remember this coming up when the current admin took away or limited many people's SNAP benefits, and a few smaller retailers wanted to throw them a bone, only to understand that it was illegal to do so unless they charged the lower price for all customers, both SNAP and non-SNAP. They didn't want to do that, so the SNAP recipients suffered as a result.
The fact that the guy apologized was a failure on his part. He should have escalated the matter to corporate, since what they did was incredibly creepy and disgusting. The manager shouldn't have apologized either - the apology should have come from the corporate executive who authorized this plan of action in the beginning. The manager likely had zero involvement in the ad whatsoever.
Targeted advertisement (and, modern advertisement in general) should be illegal. I don't consent to having my attention stolen by these scumbags
He was also famously staunchly against proprietary software in any way, so therefore he wouldn't have been spending money on software unless there was no other option that came close to meeting his needs.