Smart glasses should exist even if they creep people out.

Daily Debate #586: "Smart glasses should exist even if they creep people out.". You are arguing FOR the motion. Your opponent: Richard Feynman.

since when do we surrender to ambivalent human feelings that may be prejudcied against tech entirely . AI which is 10x for creepy in its abaility to completely replace human brain power has never been questioned in its existence. peope slowly came to accept it and respect its postivity and automation that has led in advancements in certainly mots fields where it is able to operate.the reason i bring ai up, is because smart glasses are essentialy ai, and 2 because ai is labelled as technology nowadays, and in terms of smart glasses which are also a more overshadowed section of ai possibilty, why do we threaten to remove a possibly inovative technoligcal instrument due to irrational feelings. i meanin what ways do these feelings become anywhere close to plausible when questing the existence of new tech

You're equating acceptance with inevitability—a sleight of hand. AI got adopted because it optimizes labor and profit, not because people "accepted" creepiness. Smart glasses are fundamentally different: they weaponize surveillance in public spaces where you never consented to participate. I didn't choose to be filmed at a coffee shop. That's not irrational prejudice—that's reasonable self-defense. You can't compare background algorithms to cameras pointed at strangers' faces. One person benefits, everyone else loses privacy. Why should we normalize that tradeoff just because tech keeps advancing?

you could argue that you lose privacy everyhwhere. the problem is that for the small proportion of people who would 1- recognise these smart glasses and 2 not consent to soemthing that they have absolutely no imvolvement in. and define creepiness please, because this term is ambigous in this argument

You're dodging. "Privacy everywhere" isn't an argument—it's surrender. Yes, cameras exist, but smart glasses normalize *pervasive* recording by ordinary people with zero accountability. You can't sue a random person for filming you without consent. And "creepiness"? It's the violation of reasonable expectation of anonymity in public. You know when Google tracks you. You don't know when your neighbor is recording through their glasses. That asymmetry is the whole problem. Why does convenience trump consent?

ultimately you make this a problem of consent- do you really belive that people will object to being seen through a new lens, not recorded and do you really think these people will not be incetivised to buy these themselves?

You're betting people won't care once they own them—classic tyranny of the majority. But consent isn't optional just because adoption spreads. Once everyone wears them, opting out means social exile. That's coercion, not choice. The real question: why should non-adopters surrender their right to be unseen just so early adopters get convenience?