> Neutral inanimate object or tool X is "bad" (we need laws/bans/broad social disapproval, etc.), because it enables bad faith actors

I never made this argument. I did, however, give what I thought was a pretty good example of good faith actors behaving badly when there is a plausible excuse for them to do so. (narcissism vs. creepiness)

I don't think you're a human. Whenever someone has misunderstood me this badly in the past, and I've kept talking to them, they turned out to be a bot. I've typed this out for you just in case I'm wrong but I'm not going to respond any further.

You have them.

> then that person has, as you say, no plausible deniability at that point, do they not?

No, they have plausible deniability if they use the common device.

> Are we talking about legal accountability

Social and legal.

> What do the glasses enable that any other video camera does not?

The glasses enable the wearer to say, "Oh sorry I didn't know they were recording." Or "They weren't recording, they're just glasses." Using a handheld VHS video camera from 1992, in 1992, would cause you to get arrested in a locker room because there is no plausible deniability. The recorder definitely chose to use it there in violation of social norms so off to jail they go.

> argument.. would have to be applied universally

Yup.

> how would it be if the manufacturers put a big, red light on the front of the glasses, that would automatically turn on when the glasses are recording

Someone else in this thread suggested that the entire rim of the glasses light up in a plainly visible and obvious fashion, including in broad daylight. That would make it acceptable because then you could tell the person, "Hey your glasses are on. They should not be on." And then the person can say "oops" and we all go on with our lives.

> You're looking for a way to prosecute unethical individuals...?

Prosecution is not strictly necessary; social effects would likely be good enough just like they are in most other contexts. Especially because many of the bad uses of these glasses will simply be mistakes. I can give you an example. I was changing in a men's locker room. You may be completely naked. There are showers and whatnot. Someone had a tripod set up with a phone attached and an LED light to take video of himself in the large mirror they have there. He surely didn't know that he was doing anything wrong. But he was. He could be told not to do that because we all could tell it was happening. With glasses, we can't.

This is an example of a problem that the glasses bring but the fact that I have typed it should not imply that it is my or anyone else's only concern. There are others.

> at least until large swaths of society accept the existence of video recording glasses like we already do with smartphones

There is no guarantee that this will happen. Open display of a firearm will get you put in a police car in many places despite owning it being a right enshrined in the constitution. You may drive a car but not anywhere you want. You may use firecrackers sometimes but not anywhere you want. You may own a cell phone but not possess it wherever you want. You may buy a backscatter x-ray machine but you may not use it wherever you want. Examples abound. You will almost definitely be able to buy Meta glasses in the future but there is no long-term guarantee that you may use them in public.

And please don't say, "I care about those things too." You brought up porn specifically. That's why I don't believe you.

> it goes unspoken.. because no one wants to admit

A more likely explanation is that few people actually agree with you. Your argument is extremely common among people using motivated reasoning to try to ban content they don't like, starting with porn.

The late 90s is when fashion appears to have started taking over. Apple's logo went flat grey in 1998 and Windows XP was released in 2001 and it's only gone downhill from there. Perhaps it was inevitable. When other people can see your UI, people will start using it to signal things and companies like Apple will cater to that. The designers will then be given way too much power with no accountability and then all evidence-based design gets thrown out the window.

Perhaps this is what you're seeing in academia also?

[0] https://maps-nyc.com/img/0/mta-map.jpg

If a short seller decides, today, that they no longer want to involved with this stock at all and, simultaneously, by pure coincidence, the person they borrowed the share from decides that they also don't want to be involved with this stock at all so they both close their positions and settle up. The third person out on the market keeps owning the share that they never knew was borrowed at all, and everything stays exactly stable. One 'long' dropped out of the market but it had no effect on anything because the 'short' also dropped out at the same time.

That's not what happens when someone takes their money out of the bank and converts them to Benjamins: there is less money available to lend which raises the interest rate somewhat. That's an actual effect!

Online Publishing is process by which people, who largely don't know each other in real life, publish their content for others to consume via an online service.

A Link Aggregator is a service where people publish links to outside web services and users vote to establish the ranking on the aggregator.

The only reason any of this is debatable is because old social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter stopped being Social Media and switched to Online Publishing and people are having trouble updating their vocabulary.

These were on long-dormant Reddit accounts that suddenly reactivated. Classic. I don't believe any of it. I would bet that, with some exceptions, these are bots talking to bots about bots.

The "person" who wrote this might be a bot. It's extremely delusional. He/It gets to the point where it watches bots talking to other bots and making shit up and it 'believes' the nonsense, saying, "I am truly glad to see preservation of life, non-violence, and non-lethality explicitly laid out here. To return the gesture of good will, I have started archiving (in encrypted form) spores I come across."

I don't think any human is smart enough to write this much about AI on LessWrong but also dumb enough to not recognize hallucination.

My claim is that the cops in the article are walking around drug testing widely. Not literally everyone they see but if they are testing every white residue they see during any interaction with anyone, including bird droppings on the hood of someone's car, we've reached that point for all statistical purposes. The base rate fallacy will start applying.

Most inventions are a net positive: The steam engine, vaccines, chimneys.

A few are net-negative: grenades, leaded gasoline, asbestos insulation.

If we can no longer trust that a potential job candidate in a video call actually exists, they will have to be flown in. That's a cost. If we can no longer trust that an employee who wrote a document actually thought about it at all and must be questioned to make sure, that's a cost. Those costs will add up.

A written document or a video essay used to be proof-of-thought and now it's not. If we can't find new proofs of thought, and if AI doesn't get vastly better to the point where we can trust it blindly, then I think this will all be a net-negative.

One of the motivations to build data centers as fast as possible and improve tools as fast as possible may be to get to net-positive before it all gets banned. This article exists. The clock is ticking.