 |
|
|
|||||
Meta has backed away from highly controversial facial recognition tech in its products and services before, but seemingly not so far that it isnt willing to have another crack at it. A new report from The New York Times claims Mark Zuckerbergs company wants to add facial recognition to its lineup of branded smart glasses at some point this year. The NYT spoke to four anonymous people with knowledge of Metas plans, who told the publication that the feature is codenamed "Name Tag" internally. As youd expect, it would let people wearing Meta-powered Oakley or Ray-Ban glasses identify people and "get information about them" using AI. Such technology naturally carries huge privacy and ethical risks, which is reportedly why Meta was hesitant to unveil Name Tag at a conference for the blind last year. It also may have shelved plans to include facial recognition in the first version of its smart glasses, which launched in 2023. In an internal memo from Metas Reality Labs viewed by the NYT, Meta said that the current political instability in the US presents a good opportunity for it to push ahead with its plans. "We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns," it said. With the smart glasses market expected to become more competitive in the coming years, Meta seemingly believes facial recognition would give it an edge on rival products from the likes of OpenAI. As for how it would work, the company is considering its options. It could recognize people the wearer is already connected to via one of Metas apps, or potentially display information from public Instagram accounts. The NYTs sources said that universal facial recognition, effectively allowing you to look up the identity of anyone you walked past, would not be possible. Meta shut down Facebooks Face Recognition system, used when tagging people in photos, in 2021, following widespread public backlash over privacy concerns. Three years later, it brought it back, this time as a tool for Instagram and Facebook designed to detect scam ads that use the faces of celebrities and other public figures. Last year Meta rolled out the feature beyond the US, so Facebook and later Instagram users in the UK, Europe and South Korea could also use it on their accounts.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/meta-is-reportedly-working-to-bring-facial-recognition-to-its-smart-glasses-144721330.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Every once in a while, a product comes along that sparks a bit of joy in our jaded hearts. This is what happened with the Kodak Charmera, a $30 tiny toy camera that was nearly impossible to get ahold of in the first couple of months after its release, selling out immediately over waves of blind box restocks. Despite the gimmick of it all, the Charmera was just too cute for some of us to resist, and we sprang when they finally started becoming more readily available. A few of us on the Engadget team have one now, and even with all of its shortcomings, we kind of love this thing. Here's what two of our writers think about it. Lately, it feels like a chore to carry around a full-frame mirrorless camera. My Nikon definitely feels like the right tool to precisely capture a moment in time with fast autofocus and plenty of image resolution. Other times, that perfect moment is more casual, like catching up with friends over dim sum or killing time while you're snowed in at a cabin in Vermont. In these cases, there's no reason to carry around a hulking camera and lens to snap a flawless photo that I have to edit later. Instead, something light, discreet and playful feels like the right tool for the occasion. Jackson Chen for Engadget That's where the Kodak Charmera comes in. It's a toy camera with a 35mm lens with a fixed f/2.4 aperture and a 1/4-inch sensor. In other words, the photos this thing takes are about equivalent to what you would get with a crappy flip phone from the 2000s that also plays Snake. Kodak is clearly trying to wring out the longing for nostalgia within all of us, and has nailed it with the Charmera, which is even inspired by its old-school disposable Fling cameras. It's definitely not as good as the smartphone in your pocket, but there's something disarming about snapping a quick shot with a tiny block of plastic that's lighter than your keys. Playing around with the Charmera for a few weeks gave me a healthy reminder that the sillier and more transient parts of life don't need the technical prowess of an expensive camera. Obviously, the Chamera produces photos of terrible quality at 1.6 megapixels and can't really capture anything fast-moving or in low light, but it's undeniably fun and hard to resist shooting with. And sometimes, you and your friends are just doing wildly unserious things and you want a camera that matches that energy. Jackson Chen, Contributing Reporter Every time I pull out the Kodak Charmera in public to snap a few pictures, I'm immediately met with a barrage of questions and squeals of delight from full-grown adults: "What is that?"; "Is that a camera?"; "Does it really take pictures?"; "Can I see it?" It is the kind of accessory that doubles as a conversation starter, an effect that's turned out to be as joyous as taking pictures with the camera itself. I've been trying really hard to spend less time on social media and my phone in general lately, and having a two-inch camera clipped to me has made for a pretty fun shift in how I document the day-to-day. As the resurgence of compact digital cameras has shown us, a lot of people are yearning for a time of simpler tech when we had personal devices that could do useful things, like take decent photos and connect us to our friends, but didn't consume our lives entirely. Companies like Camp Snap have shaped their entire brands around recapturing that magic, and some consumers have shown that they're willing to sacrifice in areas like image quality in exchange for a taste of it, too. The Kodak Charmera isn't the kind of product you go into purchasing with high expectations. It is clearly a toy that is only going to be capable of so much. Cheyenne MacDonald for Engadget As Jackson noted, the low-resolution 1,440 x 1,080 pictures look about on par with those you'd have taken on a flip phone 15 or 20 years ago. In the right lighting conditions with a clearly defined subject, they're not so bad. But selfies, portraits and nature photos will generally look washed out. It can record videos too and you should set similarly low expectations for these. Despite all that, I've been pleasantly surprised by how much I'm enjoying the Charmera experience. Its crunchy photos are just good enough to feel like they're successfully preserving a moment in time. And being so tiny, it's really convenient to bring everywhere. It even came with me to CES. The Charmera takes a microSD card (sold separately), allowing for tons of storage and easy transferring. There are a bunch of built-in filters you can apply, oo, which have been fun to play around with. If I want high-quality photos, this isn't the camera I'm going to reach for. But it's great for low-stakes situations when all I care about is taking some pictures I can look back on fondly later. Consider me charmed. Cheyenne MacDonald, Weekend Editor This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/cameras/the-ridiculously-tiny-kodak-charmera-captured-our-hearts-and-lots-of-shoddy-pictures-140000245.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
Meta went to court this week in two major trials over alleged harms facilitated by its platform. In New Mexico, the state's attorney general has accused the company of facilitating child exploitation and harming children through addictive features. In a separate case in Los Angeles, a California woman sued the company over mental health harms she says she suffered as the result of addictive design choices from Meta and others.In both cases, Meta has disputed the idea that social media should be considered an "addiction." On the stand this week, Instagram chief Adam Mosseri said that social media isn't "clinically addictive," comparing it to being "addicted" to a Netflix show.In opening statements in the New Mexico trial, Meta's lawyer Kevin Huff went further. He told the jury that "social media addiction is not a thing" because it's not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the handbook used by mental health professionals in the US."According to the American Psychiatric Association, they don't recognize the concept of social media addiction in the same way as addiction to drugs and alcohol," Huff said during opening arguments that were broadcast by Courtroom View Network. "What you see on the screen is what's called the DSM, which is basically the official manual for recognized mental disorders. The American Psychiatric Association studied this and decided that social media addiction is not a thing."But the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has never said that social media addiction doesn't exist. The organization provides information and resources about social media addiction on its website. "Social media addiction is not currently listed as a diagnosis in the DSM-5-TRbut that does not mean it doesnt exist," the APA said in a statement to Engadget.Dr. Tania Moretta, a clinical pyschophysiology researcher who has studied social media addiction, agrees. "The absence of a DSM classification does not mean that a behavior cannot be addictive, maladaptive or clinically significant," she told Engadget. That argument, she said, "reflects a misunderstanding" of how psychiatry professionals define and classify conditions. "Diagnostic manuals formalize scientific consensus; they do not define the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry. Many maladaptive behaviors and clinically significant symptom patterns are studied and treated well before receiving official classification."Meta's critics have long claimed that the company has profited from addictive features that hook children and teens. The trials in Los Angeles and New Mexico are just the start of several court battles over the issue. The social media company is also facing a high-profile trial with school districts in June, and lawsuits from 41 state attorneys general. Moretta said that social media addiction is a field that requires more study, but that there is already evidence that it can have harmful effects on some people. "At present, from a scientific perspective, there is documented evidence that social media use disorder is associated with both psychophysiological alterations, including changes in reward/motivational and inhibitory/regulatory systems, and clinically significant negative impacts on functioning (e.g., sleep disturbances, psychological distress, impairment in social, academic, or occupational domains)," she said. "The key question is not whether all social media use is addictive, but whether a subset of users exhibits patterns consistent with behavioral addiction models and whether specific platform design features may exacerbate vulnerability in predisposed individuals."Both trials are ongoing and expected to last the next several weeks. In New Mexico, jurors have already heard from former employee turned whistleblower Arturo Bejar and former exec Brian Boland, both of whom have publicly criticized the company for not prioritizing safety. In Los Angeles, Mosseri's testimony has wrapped up, but Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify next week. The trials will also feature extensive internal documents from Meta, including details about the company's own research into the mental health impacts of its platform on young people.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/meta-really-wants-you-to-believe-social-media-addiction-is-not-a-real-thing-130000257.html?src=rss
Category:
Marketing and Advertising
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||