•  Otter   ( @otter@lemmy.ca ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    26
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This looks even scarier than that TV/camera device by Facebook.

    It’s powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor and uses a camera, depth, and motion sensors to track and record its surroundings. It has a built-in speaker, which Humane calls a “personic speaker,” and can connect to Bluetooth headphones.

    Hell no. If a friend starts wearing a subscription-based body cam connected to “AI”, I’m going to cut them out of my life.

    It also sounds so stupid as a concept. Why would I use this instead of a phone camera? The laser display sounds like a much worse equivalent to a tiny smartwatch screen. The only use case might be when doing sports/activities, but we’d need a much more robust device for that (and much faster response times for it to be useful)

    •  fer0n   ( @fer0n@lemm.ee ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      196 months ago

      Just to clarify:

      The Pin isn’t always recording or even listening for a wake word, instead requiring you to manually activate it in some way. It has a “Trust Light,” which blinks on whenever the Pin is recording.

      Might not make a difference for people as long as it’s pointing at them and could be recording, but you made it sound like it always is. I also don’t find it desirable in any way, especially with that subscription price tag.

      I do get the idea of having a different device form factor for an AI device, but I don’t think we’re there yet for what AI can do. Still interesting through.

      And what Facebook TV/camera device are you talking about? The Quest 3? Or Ray ban glasses?

  •  frog 🐸   ( @frog@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    176 months ago

    I honestly can’t see myself ever using something like this. Aside from any other considerations about the ethics of AI and how potentially creepy this device is… I’m a visual person. I don’t even use voice controls, or indeed the actual phone call option on my phone unless I have to, because I process the world better by looking at it. Having to control a device primarily by talking to it rather than interacting with it via a visual display is a deal breaker for me.

    •  Otter   ( @otter@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      106 months ago

      I’ve only tried to use voice commands once or twice. I usually run into issues like

      • I’m in public / don’t want to bother those around me
      • It doesn’t understand what I’m asking
      • I miss one part of it and have to run through it again

      It’s so much easier to press a button and read the information myself.

    • I feel like the primary aim is to create a minimalist art piece first and a functional device as an afterthought. If you stop thinking of it as a phone, and think of it purely as an attempt at creating a status symbol, it all kind of makes sense.

  • This is a worse experience than a phone on every way I can think of. For a moment I thought maybe it could be a good solution for visually impaired people, but then I saw the laser projection screen. This seems doomed to be e-waste.