lensecat

I used a wrapper site that provided translation, here's the original article! https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/a/31oq5A/ahmed-berhan...

Interview with show host: https://www.aviaduct.com/?l=og+en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftonb...

Primary source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50085259

Touché.

Translation (DeepL):

The Government intends to introduce a temporary ban on AI glasses in selected locations. At the same time, it will set up a group of experts to advise on permanent, national regulations.

– I am concerned about the introduction of new, powerful technology where people risk being photographed, filmed or recorded without their knowledge. We will therefore propose a temporary ban on AI glasses in selected locations. This will give us time to carry out a thorough review and hold an informed debate that can lay a solid foundation for permanent regulation,” says Torgeir Micaelsen (Labour), Minister for Digitalisation and Public Administration.

The temporary ban will prohibit the use of AI glasses in selected locations. It may be appropriate to apply the ban to places where the general public regularly gather, such as parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres and public events. It could also cover places and events for children, such as schools, nurseries, playgrounds and after-school clubs. In addition, it could apply to places where privacy is particularly important, such as healthcare facilities and sports centres with changing rooms and showers. The Government will also consider whether the ban should extend to universities, colleges and other educational institutions.

– We do not want a society where people are worried about covert audio recording, photography and filming in places and situations where they are used to being free from surveillance. Such a society can feel unsafe and cause us to withdraw, says Micaelsen.

The Government does not intend to impose a total ban on AI glasses and other wearable technology. Such technology should still be permitted in certain places, as well as for purely private use – for example, when moving about in places where there is no risk of filming or photographing other people without their consent.

Work on a temporary ban on AI glasses is a high priority, and the Government will return to the Storting with a bill as soon as practicable. In parallel with this, an expert group will be set up to examine permanent national regulation of wearable technology.

Facts

- The Government has announced that, as soon as practicable, it will return to the Storting with a proposal for a temporary ban on AI glasses.

- Further consideration will be given to which technology the ban should cover, for example whether the ban should apply to glasses with cameras and audio recording, to glasses with cameras and AI functionality, or whether it should also apply to other wearable technology with cameras, audio recording and/or AI.

- The temporary ban will prohibit the use of AI glasses in selected locations. It may be appropriate to apply the ban to places where the general public regularly gather. These could include, for example, parks, beaches, museums, playgrounds, amusement parks, and sporting, musical and cultural events.

- Children are entitled to special protection. It is therefore appropriate to extend the ban to include schools, nurseries and other places where children are particularly likely to be present. It may also be appropriate to include higher education institutions.

- In addition, it may be appropriate to extend the ban to places where privacy is particularly important, such as healthcare facilities (including doctors’ surgeries), swimming pools, gyms and other venues with changing rooms and shower facilities.

- Exceptions to the ban will be permitted so that vulnerable groups can be exempted and to allow for socially beneficial use in limited circumstances.

- The Government will also appoint a group of experts to carry out a thorough review of the challenges associated with wearable technology and to advise on long-term regulation.

Only a very rich person, whose life is far, far removed from that of ordinary people, could be this spectacularly out of touch.

Reminds me of this https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1172257004765...

I think he is referring to what we today would call scientism.

That is a quote (not from one of his own writings but from a retelling from one of his friends) that is preceded by a one page disclaimer. I'm sure Gemini can find you a better quote than that if you want to slander Tolstoy.

But if you really are interested in knowing about Tolstoy's views on women, go read Anna Karenina. There is good reason why it is considered one of the greatest pieces of art ever written.

Few put it better than Tolstoy (from "What is Art?"):

"Art is a human activity, consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings, and also experience them.

Art is not, as the metaphysicians say, the manifestation of some mysterious Idea of beauty, or God; it is not, as the æsthetical physiologists say, a game in which man lets off his excess of stored-up energy; it is not the expression of man’s emotions by external signs; it is not the production of pleasing objects; and, above all, it is not pleasure; but it is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress towards well-being of individuals and of humanity.

As, thanks to man’s capacity to express thoughts by words, every man may know all that has been done for him in the realms of thought by all humanity before his day, and can, in the present, thanks to this capacity to understand the thoughts of others, become a sharer in their activity, and can himself hand on to his contemporaries and descendants the thoughts he has assimilated from others, as well as those which have arisen within himself; so, thanks to man’s capacity to be infected with the feelings of others by means of art, all that is being lived through by his contemporaries is accessible to him, as well as the feelings experienced by men thousands of years ago, and he has also the possibility of transmitting his own feelings to others."

Full text: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64908/64908-h/64908-h.htm

Think they're referring to the following, when Amodei was still working for OpenAI:

'OpenAI Feared “Optics,” Not the Law – “Dario Amodei, OpenAI’s then-Research Director, responded that ‘as a training set [LibGen is] a bit sketchier.’ [OpenAI researcher Sam] McCandlish explained: ‘I was just worried about optics – i.e. ‘openai uses copyrighted data from sketchy russian website’ showing up on [Hacker News] would be unfortunate.”'

"A lobby organisation?" Of course a single author would not be able to afford facing a multi billion dollar company on their own? And the "sketchy russian website" quote is from OpenAI employees themselves? What are you on about?

Of course they are, but the quote "LLMs can produce any algorithm, any tech stack, any concept in seconds, minutes, or hours" is more true there than in other domains. "Any concept" is the most laughable.

Indeed, there are many other more varied domains.

Absolutely nothing point toward a shifting "organised" on some grand scale where all somalis move in unison on some leaders say-so. Ledarsidorna is a far-right conspiracy blogger, you should check your sources.

It's crazy that the guy only got 648 personal votes and still got into parliament. In a country with eight million eligible voters and 349 MPs.

"We know that’s how the human brain works, at least directionally."

That's an extreme misrepresentation. What happens inside a human neuron is still not properly understood, it's not as simple as a probability function. And the network itself is certainly not feed-forward. Of course LLMs draw inspiration from the brain, so there are some similarities. But because of the language-trick of using terms from medicine and cognitive science to describe LLM architecture, we see a lot of faulty reasoning from the so-called "rationalist movement".

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-72253-7

I'm doing a PhD in sociology of work (I have a background in software development) and want to do such a study on software development with AI, but as you say it's quite hard to find a good setting, because it's hard to operationalise quality.

I have been thinking of measuring it along these lines perhaps... https://www.gitclear.com/the_ai_code_quality_maintainability...

But they have a closed sourced software so I would have to find or create an open one in that case.

Happy to hear if you have any ideas on study design!

In western thought, this is mostly related to the concept of involution.

The most famous study is on Javanese farming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Involution

In terms of software development, here's a blogpost from 2025, by a professor at Sussex Uni: https://stunlaw.blogspot.com/2025/07/involution-and-artifici...

There are also some studies in China on the concept but I'm less familiar with that literature.

I also think we underestimate the adverse side of changes we already live with. Would it really have been possible with a president (crypto)-scamming his voters in the 1950s or -60s US, or is that a result of televised media?

Read "Amusing ourselves to death" for exemple; written as a criticism of TV-media in the 80s but even more applicable on the short-form content of today.

Put Toqueville in a time-machine. Would he really regard the current state of society as something that should be aspired to?

Watch a televised primary or presidential debate from mid 20th century and you will be astounded at the quality of argument and focus of the discussion.

I think most people severely underestimate how far public discourse has fallen.

Sorry but this just isn't true. Of course you need more energy to produce a cow and then eat it than you need to sustain yourself by just eating the cows food.

It's still probabilistic from a huge dataset while the human mind is not.

I read your comment and came to think of this lecture, I think you'll appreciate it: https://youtu.be/nIq4w9brxTk?si=RJ-0tSKGFhsHN_Xx

One way of thinking about software freedom is that FOSS is artesanial and closed software isn't. Partly because it's artesanial for the creators (no need to constantly push poorly thought-through features), but primarily because it encourages the users to be part of the community, to be artisans, to learn to use - and maybe even contribute - to the software as well. This is one of the points of Sennett in the following talk: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524136

Really interesting talk, especially his points in the end on the inherent relationship between craftsmanship and open source software, and the antithetical relationship between craftsmanship and closed source. I have to say these points feel even more relevant today.

However, even though I think Sennett is right saying that the drive to constantly release new features go against core ideas of craftsmanship, I think he underestimates the productive forces that cause this behaviour. For example, he argues that the reduced craft-aspect of programming today isn't necessarily because craftsmanship is less productive. While I agree in that the quality of production would be higher in a more craftsmanlike paradigm, but that the release of "more stuff", more features, new programs etc, would be lower. I don't think it comes down to 18th century ideas that we've ingerited. As long as the productive forces reward high quantities of new and shiny features then we will continue to receive software like Windows 10.

The teenagey reference to Atlas Shrugged, a book that hails selfishness as the highest human virtue, coupled with the sloppy writing makes me highly suspicious of the competence of the author. Good riddance for Norway I guess.

If you're gonna slop-write your blog post at least put in the same effort you urge people to make when writing code...