The same poll showed:

According to the CNBC Generation Lab poll, which received responses from 1,088 people earlier this month, 46% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 now hold either a “favorable” or a “very favorable” view of democratic socialism. An additional 23% held “somewhat unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” opinions, according to the poll, which had a margin of error of 2.97 percentage points.

and

Almost half of respondents, 45%, said they believe AI will have a negative impact on their careers, while 10% believe it will help them with their careers. An additional 40% said they believe “the federal government” must set rules for AI, while 36% said they believe “an independent expert body” should set the rules of the game. Just 8% said they think AI “shouldn’t be regulated.” A majority, 60%, believe data center construction “must be slowed,” while 15% favor “speeding it up.”

While they may or may not distrust current politicians, it does not appear that they’re significantly distrustful of politicians in general.

I make a distinction between feeling correct and being correct.

My stance towards AI is complicated. I think it’s an amazing technology with the potential to change the world for the better, but also the potential to change the world for the worse. I don’t trust it in the hands of giant for-profit corporations, and think we should, among other things, legislate some regulations to ensure transparency and prevent it from being used in ways harmful to privacy and democracy. I also acknowledge that technological advances don’t go in reverse, and AI is never going away.

Does that answer your question?

You consider what I’ve said to be “Pro AI”? lol

I’m not going to dwell on this much longer, but your mistake is that AGI is a lofty goal, and not driven by greed.

I didn’t mean to imply it was scientific, any more than what OpenAI is doing is scientific. It’s all commercial.

I’m not sure what the rest of your comment is supposed to mean. They are chasing AGI. That doesn’t mean they’ll create it, of course, but that’s what they’re aiming at.

Do you have a source for this?

Running an LLM is significantly less resource intensive than training it, and all indicators are that these data centers are being built to keep up the breakneck pace of companies racing to create AGI.

The only people that think AI isn’t a thing are people terrified about AI being a thing.

I have no problem trying new things. I just often immediately hate the new things. However, I will try it again after enough time had passed.

This is literally all you can do. People have very little control over what they like (be that food, music, movies, books, whatever) all anyone can do is be willing to try new things, and occasionally retry, the things they don’t like.

I will eat pretty much anything, but strongly dislike carrots for their taste and oatmeal for its texture. I haven’t have any occasion to retry oatmeal but I retry carrots pretty frequently.

You said “hidden cameras aren’t common” but cameras that can be easily hidden are extremely common. If I misunderstood what you meant when you said they weren’t common, I apologize.

No, I don’t because I trust my doctor.

Which was my original point; it’s interesting that people have two seemingly different types of trust with their doctor. They, apparently, trust them not to be a secret creep, but they don’t seem to trust them not to be a blatant creep.

It reminds me of some saying I read once that goes something like “If you tell a person there are a billion stars in the night sky, they’ll take your word for it, but if you tell that person there’s wet paint on a bench, they’ll have to touch it to believe you.”

It’s just an interesting phenomenon, that the same person can be trusted and not trusted regarding essentially the same action.

What do you think of when you see the phrase “hidden camera” and why doesn’t that include a concealed phone?

You don’t know shit about me. You have no idea about what faith I was asking in, and I made it very clear that I was not advocating or defending these actions. This community in particular seems like a giant a circle jerk. I get it. Even hypothetical scenarios are bad. Shame on me.

I didn’t even defend meta glasses, I was just interested in the philosophical ramifications of the difference in trusts on display.

I left reddit for a few reasons. It being filled with a bunch of lemmings who couldn’t bear to see anyone question the circle jerk was one of them, but it was mostly because I prefer FOSS and like trying out new things. Well, and the Nazis infestation.

The last time you were at the doctor did you ask them if they had their phone on them?

Is your stance that if the glasses were made by, say, Sony, no one would care?

I find that very difficult to believe, but would gladly read how you arrived at that conclusion.

As I said elsewhere, I can differentiate between technology and technology companies. I didn’t realize that was so odd.

The chance of a hidden camera existing is near 0%.

How would you know this? The chance of them getting caught might be near 0%, but the fact that they’re hidden means that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d only have data for the ones that were found.

Do people not make a distinction between technology companies and the technology itself? I do. I have a fancy (okay, kind of pointless, but nerdy AF) folding pixel phone but I have GrapheneOS on it, because I don’t like giving Google all my data for free. I can find the technology fascinating while distrusting and calling out the technology company.

But it’s even more than just what you say. I’m heavily downvoted in this comment section because I dared ask a hypothetical philosophical question? I made it pretty clear it was just a philosophical question, so what’s the issue? I get very strong “shut up and hate it with us” vibes. Pretty sad, in my useless opinion.

I think it’s getting close to time for another break from social media.

But hey, I appreciate your thoughtful response, truly.

You misunderstand: Lemmy and Bluesky are my only social networks, I just use them sporatically.

Holy cow, what is wrong with this place?

Does it matter whether the camera is on or off?

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not advocating for bodyworn cameras (or any cameras) in exam rooms, on or off-- I just find it interesting where the line is.

From my perspective, if you think your doctor is a creep enough to surreptitiously record you in the exam room using a camera that’s on their face, then you can’t rule out that they’d do it in ways that would be more difficult to detect. And if you do trust them not to record you with a hidden camera, then that trust should extend to a camera in plain sight.

At the end of the day, people have a right to be comfortable in these situations with their doctor, regardless of if it makes logical sense. I hope I didn’t come off suggesting otherwise.

The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.