MAROKO133 Eksklusif ai: Meta Had the Worst Possible Response When Its Workers Were Watchin

📌 MAROKO133 Update ai: Meta Had the Worst Possible Response When Its Workers Were

In February, Meta contractors in Kenya told Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten that the company required them to review disturbing and sensitive footage captured by its Ray-Ban AI glasses.

Some reported seeing wearers naked or using the toilet. Another saw a man’s wife undressing in their bedroom, after he left the glasses on a table, the joint investigation found. Other footage they reviewed included entire “sex scenes.”

“You understand that it is someone’s private life you are looking at, but at the same time you are just expected to carry out the work,” one employee told the Swedish newspapers. “You are not supposed to question it. If you start asking questions, you are gone.”

It seems their hunch was correct.

Two months after the worker’s allegations were published in the newspapers, Meta responded in highly questionable fashion. It terminated its entire contract with the Kenyan company, Sama, the BBC reports — a decision that a Kenyan worker’s organization alleges was in retaliation to the workers speaking out.

Meta didn’t address that allegation, but told the BBC that it “decided to end our work with Sama because they don’t meet our standards,” while stressing that it took the worker’s claims “seriously.”

“Photos and videos are private to users,” a spokesperson said. “Humans review AI content to improve product performance, for which we get clear user consent.”

For its part, Sama defended its workers.

“Sama has consistently met the operational, security and quality standards required across our client engagements, including with Meta,” it said in a statement. “At no point were we notified of any failure to meet those standards, and we stand firmly behind the quality and integrity of our work.”

The allegations shine a light on the dark underbelly of the AI industry, and tech more broadly: how much of it is driven by underpaid workers overseas, and how much data it reviews behind the scenes. At Sama, the workers were performing data annotation, a process that involves manually labelling images, videos, and other content so an AI model knows what it’s looking at during training. For the Ray-Ban glasses, this is supposed to help their built-in AI function more seamlessly.

They’ll also add to the perception that Meta’s AI wearables are “pervert glasses,” allowing users to discreetly record people without their consent or knowledge. While the Ray-Bans have a light to indicate when they’re recording, these can reportedly be disabled, and many have discovered tricks to cover them. Sama workers reported that some of the users appeared unaware that their glasses were recording.

“People can record themselves in the wrong way and not even know what they are recording,” one told the Swedish newspapers.

The bombshell claims have put Meta under the microscope. The UK’s Information Commissioners Office contacted Meta about the “concerning” reports. And Kenya’s Office of the Data Protection Commissioner announced it would conduct an investigation into the Meta glasses’ potential privacy violations.

Naftali Wambalo of the Africa Tech Workers Movement said he has spoken with workers involved in the Meta glasses, alleging that Meta terminated its contract with Meta because it didn’t want workers speaking out.

“What I think are the standards they are talking about here are standards of secrecy,” Wambalo told the BBC.

More on AI: Meta Installing Software on Employee Computers to Track Everything They Do, Feed the Data to AI

The post Meta Had the Worst Possible Response When Its Workers Were Watching Naked Footage of Its Ray-Ban AI Glasses Users appeared first on Futurism.

🔗 Sumber: futurism.com

📌 MAROKO133 Update ai: Claude Code costs up to $200 a month. Goose does the same t

The artificial intelligence coding revolution comes with a catch: it's expensive.

Claude Code, Anthropic's terminal-based AI agent that can write, debug, and deploy code autonomously, has captured the imagination of software developers worldwide. But its pricing — ranging from $20 to $200 per month depending on usage — has sparked a growing rebellion among the very programmers it aims to serve.

Now, a free alternative is gaining traction. Goose, an open-source AI agent developed by Block (the financial technology company formerly known as Square), offers nearly identical functionality to Claude Code but runs entirely on a user's local machine. No subscription fees. No cloud dependency. No rate limits that reset every five hours.

"Your data stays with you, period," said Parth Sareen, a software engineer who demonstrated the tool during a recent livestream. The comment captures the core appeal: Goose gives developers complete control over their AI-powered workflow, including the ability to work offline — even on an airplane.

The project has exploded in popularity. Goose now boasts more than 26,100 stars on GitHub, the code-sharing platform, with 362 contributors and 102 releases since its launch. The latest version, 1.20.1, shipped on January 19, 2026, reflecting a development pace that rivals commercial products.

For developers frustrated by Claude Code's pricing structure and usage caps, Goose represents something increasingly rare in the AI industry: a genuinely free, no-strings-attached option for serious work.

Anthropic's new rate limits spark a developer revolt

To understand why Goose matters, you need to understand the Claude Code pricing controversy.

Anthropic, the San Francisco artificial intelligence company founded by former OpenAI executives, offers Claude Code as part of its subscription tiers. The free plan provides no access whatsoever. The Pro plan, at $17 per month with annual billing (or $20 monthly), limits users to just 10 to 40 prompts every five hours — a constraint that serious developers exhaust within minutes of intensive work.

The Max plans, at $100 and $200 per month, offer more headroom: 50 to 200 prompts and 200 to 800 prompts respectively, plus access to Anthropic's most powerful model, Claude 4.5 Opus. But even these premium tiers come with restrictions that have inflamed the developer community.

In late July, Anthropic announced new weekly rate limits. Under the system, Pro users receive 40 to 80 hours of Sonnet 4 usage per week. Max users at the $200 tier get 240 to 480 hours of Sonnet 4, plus 24 to 40 hours of Opus 4. Nearly five months later, the frustration has not subsided.

The problem? Those "hours" are not actual hours. They represent token-based limits that vary wildly depending on codebase size, conversation length, and the complexity of the code being processed. Independent analysis suggests the actual per-session limits translate to roughly 44,000 tokens for Pro users and 220,000 tokens for the $200 Max plan.

"It's confusing and vague," one developer wrote in a widely shared analysis. "When they say '24-40 hours of Opus 4,' that doesn't really tell you anything useful about what you're actually getting."

The backlash on Reddit and developer forums has been fierce. Some users report hitting their daily limits within 30 minutes of intensive coding. Others have canceled their subscriptions entirely, calling the new restrictions "a joke" and "unusable for real work."

Anthropic has defended the changes, stating that the limits affect fewer than five percent of users and target people running Claude Code "continuously in the background, 24/7." But the company has not clarified whether that figure refers to five percent of Max subscribers or five percent of all users — a distinction that matters enormously.

How Block built a free AI coding agent that works offline

Goose takes a radically different approach to the same problem.

Built by Block, the payments company led by Jack Dorsey, Goose is what engineers call an "on-machine AI agent." Unlike Claude Code, which sends your queries to Anthropic's servers for processing, Goose can run entirely on your local computer using open-source language models that you download and control yourself.

The project's documentation describes it as going "beyond code suggestions" to "install, execute, edit, and test with any LLM." That last phrase — "any LLM" — is the key differentiator. Goose is model-agnostic by design.

You can connect Goose to Anthropic's Claude models if you have API access. You can use OpenAI's GPT-5 or Google's Gemini. You can route it through services like Groq or OpenRouter. Or — and this is where things get interesting — you can run it entirely locally using tools like Ollama, which let you download and execute open-source models on your own hardware.

The practical implications are significant. With a local setup, there are no subscription fees, no usage caps, no rate limits, and no concerns about your code being sent to external servers. Your conversations with the AI never leave your machine.

"I use Ollama all the time on planes — it's a lot of fun!" Sareen noted during a demonstration, highlighting how local models free developers from the constraints of internet connectivity.

What Goose can do that traditional code assistants can't

Goose operates as a command-line tool or desktop application that can autonomously perform complex development tasks. It can build entire projects from scratch, write and execute code, debug failures, orchestrate workflows across multiple files, and interact with external APIs — all without constant human oversight.

The architecture relies on what the AI industry calls "tool calling" or "<a href="https://platform.openai…

Konten dipersingkat otomatis.

🔗 Sumber: venturebeat.com