[HN Gopher] Eyechat
___________________________________________________________________
Eyechat
Author : seatac76
Score : 251 points
Date : 2024-08-05 23:23 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (neal.fun)
(TXT) w3m dump (neal.fun)
| cranberryturkey wrote:
| ...probably make it top of the internet too.
| MaxikCZ wrote:
| This is actually pretty neat.
| yesbut wrote:
| You all are comfortable just enabling your camera for some random
| site so it can capture your face?
| colejhudson wrote:
| yes
| xandrius wrote:
| As much as I enjoy neal's little games, I'm not going to be
| trying this one, unfortunately.
| thih9 wrote:
| Perhaps that's an idea for a next game: match people by "how
| much info are you willing to provide".
|
| Present options to pick a username, email, social media, live
| text, live audio stream, live video, health data from a smart
| watch, teenage diary, ...
|
| It already works in some way; e.g. even if one person has
| both a HN account and a Snapchat account, they would use
| these to talk to different people.
| boesboes wrote:
| Already exists, demo by some dutch(?) privacy expert on how
| much info he can get out of you and just from your picture.
|
| I showed it to a colleague from marketing as a 'look how
| bad up this is!' They asked 'cool, can we do that too?'
| sigh
| fartsucker69 wrote:
| my match will get tmi
| vzaliva wrote:
| You know, someone can also capture your face while you just
| walking on the street?
|
| Given, the different people require different levels of
| privacy.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Yes, inverse profiling works this way. A group with known
| individuals communicates constantly with someone who ain't
| using FB or Insta. You still know this person quite well,
| easily identifiable, maybe lacking some information but more
| than needed.
|
| This is also why privacy has been a game over for decades.
| Ten years ago or so, friends boasted that they don't use
| Gmail due to privacy concerns but happily email folks with
| Gmail accounts.
|
| One group picture is sufficient, you can work from there.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| One pertinent difference is that a web property may correlate
| your captured biometric data with whatever they get out of
| your connection, making entity resolution much easier and
| more valuable.
|
| ELI5 when you visit online they have a handle on you.
| _the_inflator wrote:
| Yes, I had the same question popping up.
|
| On a meta-level, this is the essence of social engineering:
| creating a seemingly harmless and fun distraction to get what
| you may really want.
|
| "Consent to give me pictures of your face and movements" as a
| pop-up would probably spoil the fun a bit.
| archerx wrote:
| This site wants to share your cookies to at least 662 "venders"
| and they are being dishonest with the "legitimate interest"
| scam. The creator clearly does not care about nor respect their
| users/visitors.
| mandmandam wrote:
| It's so wild to me that people tolerate this. I just close
| the tab or 'reader' whenever I see that type of thing, but I
| know very few others who do the same.
| snorremd wrote:
| I mean, if a website claims to have tens if not close to a
| hundred "legitimate interest" cookies I'm reasonably sure
| they are living of wildly invasive ad tracking. I
| immediately close these websites just as you do.
|
| It would be swell if more of the web was made by passionate
| people to share knowledge for free. I know this is a
| privileged attitude as creating content takes time which is
| not free. But some of the best web sites are the ones
| without monetisation. We need a better monetisation system
| for the web that is based on people paying for content
| instead of people being sold as user data.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Why worry? It only captures the eyes.
| ashkankiani wrote:
| It has to capture everything first to figure out where the
| eyes are...
| gattr wrote:
| One could wear a paper mask/visor to only show the eyes.
| (Though the eye extraction feature might malfunction then?)
| GaggiX wrote:
| The extraction of the eyes is done client side.
| PKop wrote:
| False
| darajava wrote:
| Why do you care? You likely give your entire life story to
| Google? What do you think he's going to do with your face data?
| moralestapia wrote:
| Yes, I am.
| arendtio wrote:
| No, I just went straight to the HN comments after seeing it
| requires camera permissions ;-)
| jsyang00 wrote:
| sure, have you ever gone outside? thousands of cameras
| everywhere in any populated place, so why not?
| muppetman wrote:
| Sure am. This site is a lot more trustworthy than the no doubt
| 100 cameras I walk past each day that capture my face without
| my permission.
| bun_terminator wrote:
| Suure some random site that hijacks your back button, doesn't
| talk at all what it is and wants my camera permissions
| ferguu_ wrote:
| exactly! a little explanation please? i dont turn my camera on
| for just anything!!! who am i chatting with - the nsa?
| archerx wrote:
| Worst, advertising data miners if you look at the cookie
| consent form.
| umeshram wrote:
| Funny
| miguelxt wrote:
| Another hit from Neal. I wonder (and envy, in a good way) where
| does he gets the time to work and all this wonderful little
| games.
| amitlevy49 wrote:
| Doesn't he do this full time?
| ianbicking wrote:
| But there's no attempt to monetize anything...
|
| ... which is part of why everything seems so polished, they
| each express an idea without compromise, and when he's done
| he can just be done.
|
| Someone could make a pretty good museum exhibit from his
| site.
| omoikane wrote:
| > But there's no attempt to monetize anything...
|
| Maybe for the pages you tried, but I see ads on these
| pages:
|
| https://neal.fun/infinite-craft/ (bottom)
|
| https://neal.fun/perfect-circle/ (right)
|
| https://neal.fun/days-since-incident/ (bottom, near the
| end, above the "you may also like" section)
|
| The last one occasionally fails to show ads due to some
| javascript error (visible in the console). The same error
| was also observed on a few other pages with the "you may
| also like" footer, so my guess is that some ads were
| supposed to be visible on many pages, but were accidentally
| hidden due to some configuration issue.
| bemmu wrote:
| It's my understanding that Infinite Craft alone is
| probably so popular that those ads actually bring in
| decent revenue.
|
| For comparison, at one point slither.io, which is another
| browser game (not his project) was bringing in $100k/day
| from one ad unit showed each time the player dies
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-slither-io-goes-viral-
| games-...
| null0pointer wrote:
| It boggles my mind how valuable advertising is. Who is
| clicking on that shit and presumably buying those
| products? I just cannot believe that there were actually
| $100k/day worth of actual ad conversions, no matter the
| player count. Yet the money flows so I guess people
| really do click on that shit and then buy that shit.
| SandyTown wrote:
| Kids love ads, and that game was full of kids.
|
| When I say love, I mean genuinely seek them out. When I
| was younger, there was no internet in my house, and
| adverts were the opportunity to step away from the TV and
| do something else. But I worked as a babysitter in
| December a few years ago and things have certainly
| changed a lot.
|
| They would turn on the TV just to watch ads to "find out
| what I want for Christmas" then turn it off again when
| the advertising finished and ask for Netflix. When
| playing games on an iPad or laptop, they would click
| every ad to open it in a new tab, meaning they could
| browse products after they were done playing.
|
| The first couple of times I told the kids not to do that,
| and reported back to the parents after. But turns out
| most parents liked this behaviour...it made Christmas
| shopping easier, because their kids would make a list of
| cheaper things aimed at them, rather than all asking for
| expensive iPads and PlayStations.
| bemmu wrote:
| I have to agree $100k/day seems close to unbelievably
| high, so I had to do some napkin math. In short, it seems
| it may be possible.
|
| If the avg player dies 10 times, and the ads shown had
| $.5 CPM, then to make a dollar you'd need only 200
| players. So to make $100k/day you'd need 20M daily
| actives, which is very high but it was really popular
| around those days.
|
| Is 20M daily actives possible? Yes, because if the
| average play session is 15 minutes, with that many
| players you'd have ~200k concurrent players. There's
| currently a game on Steam called "banana" where you just
| click on bananas, and that one has 292k concurrents.
| There are also several Roblox games with that many
| concurrents, so it checks out.
| namanyayg wrote:
| Same. Not just the time, where does he gets the ideas for these
| games.
|
| Plus, his implementation in a few of them is really exhaustive
| and polished. Are there any "interns" helping him?
| thornewolf wrote:
| there was a highly similar project to this on HN a few months
| ago.
|
| his previous project (infinite craft) was one of the first
| things i ever heard people talk about wrt LLMs.
|
| His skill is in execution. I think he finds inspiration from
| the people around him.
| durumu wrote:
| Was this the one you were thinking of?
| https://eieio.games/nonsense/game-12-stranger-video/
| lambdaba wrote:
| Careful doing this as there's a risk of falling in love, as per
| this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/style/modern-
| love-to-fall...
| latexr wrote:
| https://archive.ph/20240808081029/https://www.nytimes.com/20...
| gloosx wrote:
| thank you sire, I banished the authwall iframe, removed the
| gradient and made it scrollable only to realize the article
| was cut for public in the first place. I wonder how
| archive.ph got the full version automatically...
| latexr wrote:
| > I banished the authwall iframe, removed the gradient and
| made it scrollable only to realize the article was cut for
| public in the first place.
|
| If your browser has a Reader Mode, that's a faster way to
| get to that scenario, no DOM manipulation needed.
|
| > I wonder how archive.ph got the full version
| automatically
|
| We have speculation but not certainties.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36060891
|
| Regardless, the fact it works is why it's so used on HN.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I think love has to be a state that can be worked towards. We
| wonder the earth (with apps) looking for that perfect person,
| today. But did noone fall in love in the past, when you had to
| make do with people from your own village?
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| In my case the Fear Of Missing Out is terrible.
|
| If I lived in a village of a few hundred people I could be
| satisfied that my spouse was the best match I could possibly
| hope for, right? Say half the village is men, then a quarter
| is too young or too old, then there's just a handful who fall
| in my range of economic status and attractiveness, and I
| could be as happy as one could hope with any of them.
|
| I live within reasonable driving distance of probably a
| literal thousand other people in my age range and of similar
| attractiveness to me. Whoever I stick with, someone else will
| be better in one way and worse in another. There might be a
| hundred dimensions on which to measure someone. Hence my
| current vacation from monogamy.
|
| I think love, as in the feeling of limerence, obsession,
| desire to be with someone, desire to "get" something from
| somebody attractive, is easy to cultivate and always has
| been. I love someone who said she "falls in love with anyone
| who makes eye contact with her long enough". Ironically, her
| definition of love doesn't include texting me every month.
|
| But love as in, doing hard marriage shit for decades until
| one of you outlives the other... I thought I felt that when I
| was first with my ex-spouse, now I believe I may be happier
| if I never feel that.
| petepete wrote:
| The name took me back to a video chat programme I remember using
| with my friends in the very early 2000s called Eyeball Chat.
| petargyurov wrote:
| I remember that someone posted a very similar project here some
| time ago.
| namanyayg wrote:
| Yes, had a deja vu moment there. I guess it was a similar game
| by someone else.
| wonger_ wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38305787
| eieio wrote:
| I made Stranger Video (the linked item)! Neal's a friend of
| mine and I gave him a (small) hand with eyechat.
|
| We were originally going to collaborate more on eyechat but
| then One Million Checkboxes[1] blew up and I had to bow out
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40800869
| namanyayg wrote:
| I'd love to know more. Did he reach out to you? Was it
| the other way around?
|
| What's the difference in two's codebases, if any?
| eieio wrote:
| we meet up on occasion to kick around ideas[1] - we're
| both in nyc and the 'people doing creative tech stuff in
| nyc' world is not _that_ big. I think(?) we first met
| right after I made stranger video; we 've batted around
| ideas about it for a while. Pretty sure this idea was
| from him!
|
| There's probably 0 overlap in the codebase - 100% (or
| close to it) of the code is from Neal (the only code I
| wrote for this was a very early prototype that cropped
| out _just_ the eyes, instead of the bar you see now). I
| sent him a couple of snippets from my codebase early on
| but mostly just gave pointers on my tech stack / chatted
| about some of the problems I ran into. Given the size of
| Neal's audience the default scale for a project he
| launches is pretty big!
|
| Anyway, mostly wanted to clarify that the similarities
| between this and stranger video are intentional :)
|
| [1] this is where the idea for one million checkboxes
| actually came from!
| namanyayg wrote:
| Always lovely to know how these things work in the
| background.
|
| I love it when the web is used for something fun and not
| selling another subscription service.
|
| Sent you an email btw, I had some thoughts that I wanted
| to talk about
| diimdeep wrote:
| I would love to read about tech details behind this.
| YounoYouno wrote:
| Nice try, aint' getting my biometrics this time!
| tharakam wrote:
| Exactly! lol
| hazn wrote:
| after eyechatting with 5 people:
|
| * all people had brown eyes
|
| * all went for funny looks immediately
|
| * 3 of them were shocked and left
| sam_perez wrote:
| Clicking on the link without knowing what it was ahead of time
| was jarring, even not actively participating.
| manmal wrote:
| Not for me, at all. Do you generally avoid eye contact?
| sam_perez wrote:
| Lol no not generally ;)
|
| Just did not expect to be gazing into the windows of
| someone's soul immediately. The widescreen monitor may have
| contributed.
| kypro wrote:
| How is this not a torture method? Do neurotypicals think this is
| fun? I'm getting anxiety just thinking about it.
| pcranaway wrote:
| To the people worried about their data being sent to google or
| whatever (I'm not sure what they're actually worried about) --
| the extraction of your eyes is done client side, using a
| seemingly very well made ML model running on Tensorflow which
| fits in under 15mb.
|
| The feed of your camera is transmitted "directly" to the person
| you're looking at (well, no, not really directly, it uses WebRTC,
| so your data passes through Neal's TURN server, but do you really
| think Neal wants to take care of properly storing your data and
| handing it off to advertisers?)
| BossingAround wrote:
| So even after this thought process, it comes down to "do you
| trust the author" (just like before it)... Not unreasonable to
| answer either way if you ask me.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Yeah, we should probably add a blockchain to the design so
| that we don't have to trust anyone.
| davedx wrote:
| What, how do you know all this?
| dvaun wrote:
| Your browser has developer tools which provide views into
| transmitted files, network requests, etc. You poke around and
| see how it is implemented using the tools.
| namanyayg wrote:
| It's not working for me at all, did it get hugged to death?
|
| I just see a black screen with "Eyes from $LOCATION" under it.
| bot0047 wrote:
| Congrats! Your eyes are ours now. - them
| namanyayg wrote:
| Thanks for instilling a new fear in me today
| zikduruqe wrote:
| "Got Eem" - Worldcoin
|
| *for those that aren't familiar with Worldcoin....
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/07/technology/worldcoin-iris...
| latexr wrote:
| I find these more relevant (and not paywalled).
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/06/1048981/worldcoi.
| ..
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/richardnieva/worldcoin-.
| ..
| namanyayg wrote:
| I know it's in jest but does worldcoin work with any regular
| phone camera?
|
| I assumed it needs some sort of closeup high definition image
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| What we really need for this is on-screen cameras, so you can
| actually look someone in the eye. Now, you only look them in the
| eye when you look away from them at the camera. And when you look
| them in the eye you're just looking at their mouth.
| jbullock35 wrote:
| We've needed this - easy, direct eye contact - for quite a long
| time. I keep waiting for someone to develop it. I think that
| Apple has a relevant patent, but I don't know how much content
| is in the patent, and I've never heard that Apple has done
| anything with it.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| Apple uses it for its Eye Contact feature in FaceTime
| lupire wrote:
| Apple applies a filter to make fake eye contact.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| "filter" seems to downplay it
|
| https://9to5mac.com/2019/07/03/facetime-eye-contact-
| correcti...
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| A guy on Youtube already built this...
| https://youtu.be/2AecAXinars?si=p42afAGJrUEsHedX
| qingcharles wrote:
| They're slowly coming to market:
|
| https://www.androidauthority.com/under-display-selfie-camera...
| colordrops wrote:
| The claim why these aren't adopted is that they aren't high
| enough quality. Why not include both a standard and
| undersceen front-facing camera and get the best of both
| worlds? Could use the under-screen camera for video chat and
| the standard one for everything else. Or even use some AI
| algorithm to merge the data from the standard camera with the
| under-screen one to increase quality.
| filcuk wrote:
| People want quality selfies more than eye to eye calls
| colordrops wrote:
| Did you read my comment? That's what I was proposing to
| address. By "standard camera" I meant the standard front
| facing camera that is high quality.
| roywiggins wrote:
| The other problem is that having an under-display camera
| doesn't stop everyone else's eyes from pointing in the
| wrong direction, so even if you prioritize eye contact
| you'd also have to convince all your friends to, as well.
| lupire wrote:
| OK but that's how regular humans work too.
| bredren wrote:
| Earliest expected release for an Under Display Camera (UDC)
| iPhone right now is iPhone 18 in 2026:
|
| >According to The Elec, LG Innotek has entered the preliminary
| development of the UDC, which sits under the display and does
| not result in a visible hole in the panel when the camera is
| not in use...
|
| >Apple will then adopt the UDC in 2027's "Pro" iPhone models,
| according to respected analyst Ross Young of research firm
| Display Supply Chain Consultant
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/iphone-under-display-ca...
| gojomo wrote:
| Ultimately it will likely be easier to simulate eye-contact
| with live restyling - that is, synthesizing the view from a
| virtual 'camera' using one or more other cameras nearby - than
| physically hide a true camera inside a monitor. (Simulation
| could also signal eye-contact with any point on the screen, not
| just a single camera location.)
|
| Nvidia, Apple, & others already have software for this, which
| will only get better.
| davedx wrote:
| Ha for important meetings I look into the camera for this
| reason
| brikym wrote:
| So this is what it's like dating in the middle east.
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| It must be terrible for all the autistic people. Nothing _but_
| eye contact.
| jmprspret wrote:
| Depending on how religiously pious the man is, he may not even
| look at her eyes.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| This is great!
| dhruvagga wrote:
| Is this the new Omegele where the conversations can't happen?
| haha
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| It's the eyebrow-inclination detection that really makes this a
| work of art. Being able to turn a serious stare into a serious
| aspect ratio is power I didn't know I needed.
| noman-land wrote:
| For the shy and curious, you can use OBS as a virtual webcam.
| This is a good option.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQHJX9rMp8. Guy keeps winking at
| me and then rolling his eyes when the video doesn't respond.
| drdrey wrote:
| this is giving me massive anxiety
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-09 23:01 UTC)