This is hypothetical - the glasses don’t fact-check what people say, they somehow detect willful deception, like people expect polygraphs to do, but with high accuracy. Would people welcome these, fear them, object on privacy grounds? I think it would be very contentious. Would people feel different if they only fed the information to the wearer but didn’t record or send it anywhere? What exactly would the issues be?

  • evilcultist@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but every other word out of my mouth in the presence of these glasses would be an intentional lie.

  • Return_of_Chippy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Anarchy in the streets immediately. Imagine how many romantic, professional and social relationships would be tested right away.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    I am trying to tag along with the thought experiment, but I can only imagine it being yet another tech bro scam. Elon Musk will sell Grok lie detector glasses that just fucking guesses, but the press will just keep copy-pasting deceitful press releases until half the people I meet believe the glasses do detect lies.

    Many will then start using them in private resulting in both extreme frustration when they hallucinate lies, and unprecedented fashtech surveillance.

  • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    People would very, very quickly start to rationalize why the detection couldn’t possibly be right. Look at how many scientifically or historically proven things people already are willing to disregard because it conflicts with their worldview or beliefs!

    So they detect “willful” deception? People would just fall back on the “…well, I didn’t know” / “didn’t think XYZ counted” / “didn’t consider ABC” as their excuses. Or if it can be shown that 0.00-near-infinite-zeros-01% of the population has some quirk which makes them detect wrongly, suddenly there’d be most of the population claiming that.

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      To sum that up, are you saying people would find reasons to disbelieve that their heroes and icons are lying? I was thinking more along the lines of personal contact - everyday conversations, business deals, etc.

      • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yep. Their heroes, icons, leaders, family… and themselves.

        Hell, they’d disbelieve if the glasses detected someone was telling the truth, but they didn’t want to believe that!

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    they somehow detect willful deception, like people expect polygraphs to do, but with high accuracy

    This technology is a fantasy. It relies on the false assumption that their are detectable, reliable, and measurable physiological differences between bodies that are lying and bodies that are telling the truth.

    Polygraphs aren’t unreliable because the technology isn’t ready. They’re unreliable because the idea that you can physically measure a concept (lying) is logical fallacy. (reification).

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Yeah you’re not understanding what “hypothetical” means - it means suppose this happens, not asking if it can. Like if I asked how FTL space travel would change our culture, it’s the culture part I’m interested in, not the physics being impossible.