The AI-powered Friend pendant is now out in the world. If you live in the US or Canada, you can buy one for $129.
The smooth plastic disc is just under 2 inches in diameter; it looks and feels a little like a beefy Apple AirTag. Inside are some LEDs and a Bluetooth radio that connects you (through your iPhone) to a chatbot in the cloud that’s powered by Google’s Gemini 2.5 model. You can tap on the disc to ask your Friend questions as it dangles around your neck, and it responds to your voice prompts by sending you text messages through the companion app. You can reply to these messages with your voice or via text to keep the conversation going.
It also listens to whatever you’re doing as you move through the world, no tap required, and offers a running commentary on the interactions you have throughout your day. To perform that trick, the device has microphones that are always activated.
If the idea of a microphone-packed wearable that’s always listening to your conversations raises privacy concerns for you, just know that you’re not alone. If your experience is anything like ours, wearing the Friend will likely earn you the ire of everyone around you. Curiously, you might even end up being bullied by the chatbot itself.
Well, don’t use it then.
Can’t really say that when it is an always listening device. Can’t really not use it if someone around you has one
Unfortunately we live in a world where people often have the right to do things that we personally disapprove of.
Then your original comment means nothing. Also, two-party consent is pretty common
It’s not universal. Where I live it’s one-party consent.
OK? Again the comment of “Don’t use it” is even more pointless if you live in a single party consent state.
But my comment about how people have the right to do things you personally disapprove of is even more pointful.
meanwhile, literally in the headline:
no one is saying you don’t have “the right” to wear this Spyware Pendant in your one-party consent state.
people are saying it’s creepy and you’re jumping in defending it with “well, technically, it’s not illegal, depending on state law”. you’re just completely missing the point entirely.
this is like, if someone wrote an article about how people are annoyed by someone microwaving fish in the office cafeteria, you chimed in with “well they can simply quit and find a different job where people don’t microwave fish at the office”.
Okay, we’re in agreement then.
No, that comment is pointless regardless. Of course people can do things I don’t like. That was never in question. That does not mean they are free from consequences or societal repercussions.
You also have the right to smear shit on your face, but don’t be surprised if no one wants to hang out with you.
Fortunately, you can punch them in the face to provide some badly needed attitude adjustment.
Uh huh
And what about those around you? What about the people in the streets, the people you interact with?
I don’t want this shit but now I have no choice, I WILL BE MONITORED.
The only way out is to be a fucking hermit in the forest, at this point