This life-changing piece of health tech is getting cheaper — and more advanced
You can imagine a future where you wear earbuds that are the interface for your voice assistant as well as your lifeline on a loud plane. Vox/Getty Images
Hearing aids, like canes or orthopedic shoes, are something you don't think about a lot when you're young. But maybe you should.
You probably either know someone who needs hearing aids, or you'll need them some day yourself. About 30 million people in the United States, aged 12 and older, have hearing loss in both ears, and about two-thirds of people end up with hearing loss, which can range from mild to severe, by their 70s.
But talking to your parents or grandparents about getting hearing aids can be tough — I've done it. They might not like the idea of sticking things in their ear canals or confronting the difficult realities of aging and health. They surely shy away from the price tag of hearing aids, which can cost thousands of dollars and are not covered by insurance or Medicare.
But plugging tiny and exorbitantly expensive speakers into your ears isn't the only way. Your mom might already own hearing aids without even knowing it.
User Friendly
A weekly dispatch to make sure tech is working for you, instead of overwhelming you. From senior technology correspondent Adam Clark Estes. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Hearing aids have never been more accessible — or futuristic. In April, a company called Nuance started selling glasses that double as hearing aids thanks to microphones and beam-forming speakers built into the frame. Although at $1,200, they're not cheap, they cost far less than a pair of prescription hearing aids, which tend to range from $2,000 to $7,000.
Hearing aids have never been more accessible — or futuristic.
You can also buy something that's legally considered a personal sound amplification product (PSAP), which is not designed to treat hearing loss but does make things louder. Some of them can play music and handle phone calls too. In the age when earbuds are ubiquitous, these devices appeal to all ages.
'It's good that we're seeing people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, talking about it, because it's totally changing the paradigm for them of engaging in hearing care earlier,' Nicholas Reed, a faculty member at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told me.
I'm a millennial, but I've also dealt with hearing loss my entire life. A bad stretch of childhood ear infections left me mostly deaf in one ear and pretty spotty in the other. I learned to read lips as a teenager and avoid conversations at loud parties in college. Some surgery in my 20s brought me closer to normal, but I could still use a little help.
Related The surprising thing I learned from quitting Spotify
I've spent the past few weeks trying out the Nuance glasses in various settings. They're remarkable, not only because they feel almost indistinguishable from my regular glasses but also because I forget they're hearing aids. Made by EssilorLuxottica, the company behind Ray-Ban and dozens of other glasses brands, the Nuance glasses employ some of the same technology that the Ray-Ban Meta glasses use to play music and help you talk to AI. And while the Nuance glasses don't currently offer the option to stream audio, they do help you hear what your friend is saying in a loud bar.
The AirPods Pro 2, which retail for $250, work equally as well. After Apple announced last fall that a software update would unlock an accessibility setting — it's appropriately called Hearing Aid — I started using it all the time, toggling between listening to podcasts to ordering cold brew in a crowded coffee shop. In instances where I may have needed to ask people to repeat themselves in the past, I hear them fine the first time. I just have to wear AirPods all the time, which makes the glasses solution even more appealing.
For most people, hearing loss typically starts in your 50s and gains momentum in your early retirement years. If you've ever been to a busy restaurant with your parents or grandparents, you know this can be alienating for the person left out and frustrating for the hearing person, too. The social isolation can lead to loneliness and anxiety, which can hasten cognitive decline and lower life expectancy.
Nevertheless, neither traditional clinical hearing aids or the newer category of devices are easy fixes. Once you start wearing any sort of hearing aid, it takes time to adjust, and you might need help tweaking the sound as you get used to it. That's one reason why so many people avoid it — only one in five who need hearing aids actually have them. You can't put them in your ears and immediately have perfect hearing. Your brain adjusts over time, and so it may take weeks or months to adapt to the new frequencies hearing aids help you hear.
Related How technology has inspired neuroscientists to reimagine the brain
Still, it's a worthwhile project.
'Sensory input is so key to our existence, but we just sort of overlooked it for so long,' Reed said. 'It's something that's vital to your existence and how you connect with other people.'
It's not clear how the latest hearing aid innovation will move the needle on adoption. Even though over-the-counter hearing aids have been available since 2022, when the FDA implemented new regulations for the devices, it's still an uphill battle to get people to wear them.
'Sensory input is so key to our existence, but we just sort of overlooked it for so long.' — Nicholas Reed, faculty member at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine
'We are not seeing large increases in hearing aid uptake since over-the-counter hearing aids have become available,' said Tricia Ashby, senior director of audiology practices at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 'And I have to say that mimics other countries who had over-the-counter hearing aids before the US did.'
Given the fact that the older people who need them most are potentially less likely to try the latest technology, it might still take a few years for over-the-counter hearing aids to go mainstream. Given the precedent set by companies like Apple and Nuance, though, it's possible that more devices will add hearing assistive features to existing products.
You can imagine a future where you wear earbuds that are the interface for your voice assistant as well as your lifeline on a loud plane. You might have glasses that project walking directions onto your field of view and help you hear which direction traffic's coming from when you have to cross the street. These kinds of features together only get more important as you get older and need a little more help.
'We are in an age now where you're thinking about optimizing aging, and how do you do it?' Reed said. 'And it's things like this.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
2 days ago
- Atlantic
How to Turn Your Power Plant Into a Gold Factory
Last month, a small company in San Francisco announced that it had a plan to manufacture gold—not merely a flake or a nugget, but tons of the stuff. According to a paper written by one of Marathon Fusion's co-founders (and not yet peer reviewed), the alchemist's dream could be achieved not by mixing powders in a crucible but by tweaking atoms that were superheated during the process of nuclear fusion. The gold wouldn't be the end game, more like a side hustle. The millions of dollars made from selling the precious metal could be used to offset the cost of nuclear fusion, a near-limitless power source that maybe, just maybe, could one day replace fossil fuels. For more than two millennia, the promise of alchemy—and, specifically, transmuting ordinary elements into valuable ones—has intrigued scientists and scoundrels alike. Medieval alchemists were obsessed with finding or creating the Philosopher's Stone, a substance thought to turn common metals into gold. That turned out to be elusive, though arcane tinkering continued for centuries. Then, in the early 1900s, physicists determined that they could change one element into another by altering the number of protons in its nucleus. In an essay published in The Atlantic in 1936, a physicist wrote that turning mercury into gold —which is what Marathon is advocating—was scientifically possible but 'cannot be commercially profitable.' From the June 1936 issue: Modern alchemy That didn't stop scientists from giving it a go. Over the past 50 years, researchers have produced gold in laboratories, but only on the scale of atoms. In 1980, Glenn Seaborg, who was part of the team that first isolated plutonium, was able to turn several thousand atoms of the metallic element bismuth into gold by using a particle accelerator. The amount was minuscule—not enough to see, much less sell—and the cost exorbitant. Seaborg estimated at the time that, using his technique, making a single ounce of gold would cost $1 quadrillion. In May, scientists reported that they had turned lead into gold inside the world's largest particle accelerator, in Switzerland—although, again, the yield was tiny, measured in trillionths of a gram. And an instant after the gold atoms were created, they dashed themselves into subatomic particles inside the accelerator. Nuclear fusion has proved similarly challenging, despite being pursued with similar fervor. Fusion, in which atoms are smashed together in order to release energy, is the holy grail of clean power, both because it creates less waste than fission reactors and because it doesn't carry the same risk of melting down like the ones in Chernobyl and Fukushima. Although experimental fusion reactors that can make electricity have been built, the technology hasn't advanced enough to allow fusion to be practical on a commercial scale. Fusion, like modern alchemy, is prohibitively expensive, in part because the reaction requires extremely high temperatures, which require a lot of energy to achieve. Back in February, Adam Rutkowski, one of the co-founders of Marathon, started thinking about additional ways that a fusion reactor could prove useful—an extra revenue stream, perhaps, that could subsidize the costly process. He told me that he'd had a few other ideas, including one involving nuclear batteries, before he arrived at his epiphany: The neutrons produced during fusion could be repurposed to change one metal into another. A power plant, in other words, could double as a gold factory. Rutkowski ran the idea past several fusion physicists, including Dennis Whyte, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT. Whyte told me that he thought it was clever, and he plans to test the theory by using computer simulations during one of his classes next semester. Steven Cowley, the director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, who was not involved in the study, was likewise intrigued. Rutkowski has 'a really nice idea,' Cowley told me, though he would like to see more analysis before he's entirely convinced that gold could be manufactured in this way. At the moment, Rutkowski's idea is entirely speculative; he's not sitting on a pile of gold, but rather would like to be one day, as commercial fusion becomes more of a reality. In fact, the utter lack of commercial fusion in 2025 is likely the largest and most obvious barrier to his vision. Marathon is not in the reactor-building business; instead, it hopes to team up with such companies by consulting and supplying them equipment. According to a recent survey, fusion companies have raised $2.6 billion in the past year, and the majority of company representatives who responded said they believe that fusion power will become a reality at some point in the next decade. Some physicists I spoke with thought that timeline might be optimistic, but they also noted that significant progress has been made in recent years. I sent Marathon's proposal to Lawrence Principe, a historian and chemist at Johns Hopkins University who has written several books about alchemy and has re-created alchemical recipes in his lab. (He successfully replicated one 17th-century experiment that made a lump of gold appear to grow into a glittering tree inside a flask.) Principe was struck, while perusing the company's website, by the spirited promotional language—touting a 'golden age,' for example—that echoes the pamphleteering of centuries past. 'I'm getting deja vu here looking at this relative to 16th- and 17th-century texts,' he told me. Like Marathon, many alchemists from that era advertised that they were on the cusp of a breakthrough, according to Principe. They wrote to kings and queens asking for an investment in their laboratory, or for a gold sample to kick-start the undertaking. In the 15th century, King Henry IV banned the practice because he was worried about alchemical advances undermining gold currency. That's a theoretical consideration today too. But fusion seems unlikely to devalue anyone's stockpile: Rutkowski estimates that a single reactor could produce just a couple of tons of gold per year—worth more than $200 million, but still a far cry from the 3,000-plus tons that are mined annually, not to mention that any gold produced through fusion would be somewhat radioactive and would take about 15 years to be considered safe. The history of alchemy is replete with stories of dashed hopes and dubious boasts. In 1782, a British chemist named James Price, like Marathon, claimed that he could turn mercury into gold, though he professed doing it with mysterious powders rather than nuclear energy. After being repeatedly challenged to replicate his experiment, he agreed to put on a public demonstration. But instead, when the time came, he drank a vial of poison and died in front of the three witnesses who showed up. In the early 20th century, Rudolph Hunter, an engineer and inventor, was deemed a 'modern Midas' after claiming he was set to build a factory that could produce thousands of dollars' worth of gold a day by using principles he had learned from studying the sun. He passed away before proving his concept. From the January 1973 issue: History of alchemy Unlike those ill-fated efforts, Marathon's plan has real science behind it. If it works, the achievement would mark the end of the alchemist's quest, proof positive that humankind can alter the elements. But Rutkowski and company aren't driven by the desire for gold itself. Instead, they're after a technology that could help sate the world's ever-growing need for energy—a prize that's far more valuable and, for now, still just out of reach.
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Jim Acosta's AI interview raises deeper questions about human connection
From Facebook to FaceTime, it is now easier than ever to stay connected with friends and family members. Thanks to technology, I can FaceTime with my parents, send TikTok videos and share photos of my dog with friends with a few clicks. But what happens when we use technology to virtually resurrect the dead and allow an avatar to speak on behalf of the deceased in a video interview sharing a political viewpoint? That question came to the forefront when former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta 'interviewed' an Artificial Intelligence avatar of Joaquin Oliver, a teenager killed in the 2018 Parkland high school shooting. In the video, the avatar used a chatbot to generate answers in a voice that supposedly sounded like the boy. Acosta said the boy's father had approached him to do the piece as a way of keeping Joaquin's memory alive. The interview sparked backlash and raised ethical concerns over technology's potential role in tarnishing the memory of the dead or changing their viewpoint. In this case, the Joaquin avatar advocated for 'stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement.' Acosta's interview also raises a larger question: Is AI helping us connect or just simulating human connection while we become more disconnected? Grief is different for everyone, and how people grieve is evolving along with technology. Four years ago, I read about Joshua Barbeau, a guy who lost his fiancée to a rare liver disease. He used Project December — a chat website that simulates a text-based conversation with anyone, including someone who is dead — to communicate via chatbot with an AI version of his deceased fiancée. Traditionally, people processed grief through therapy or with the support of trusted friends or family members. Today, programs like ChatGPT are being used as therapists, for friendships and in some cases, as romantic partners. As Derek Thompson wrote in The Atlantic in February, 'Americans are spending less time with other people than in any other period for which we have trustworthy data, going back to 1965.' Isolation isn't accidental. Many people keep their phones on silent, prefer texting to calling and spend hours doomscrolling. Now, AI can simulate people with avatars. So when grief feels heavy, there is a program to help. When my grandmother died, the grief felt unbearable. Fifteen years later, when I talk about her, the loss still tugs at my heart. There isn't a day that I don't wish she was still here. I keep her memory alive without using AI, but I don't judge how others grieve. Grief is intimate — and that's what makes Joaquin Oliver's AI interview so eerie. It raises emotional questions. Is AI helping a family grieve? Was it a family's attempt to give their son a voice in a country that failed to protect him from gun violence? Maybe it's both. Human emotions can be messy. But what makes it all bearable is human connection — holding space for others in tough times — something technology can't replace. A chatbot can't actually resurrect the dead. It's a mirror of memories, reflecting our own words and thoughts. In the end, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported, Barbeau — the man who lost his fiancee — 'felt like the chatbot had given him permission to move on with his life in small ways, simply by urging him to take care of himself.' Perhaps that's the lesson. Technology can offer us tools for processing grief and maintaining memories, and maybe even give us permission to move on. But AI can't hug you or laugh at inside jokes. It won't sit next to you in silence when the world feels heavy. The loss of my grandmother still hurts. No amount of technology can bring her back. That's part of life's beauty — to love something death can touch. We carry those we've lost not through digital simulations, but by sharing memories and stories with others. The danger isn't just that AI will replace human connection — it's that we may settle for it. Mary Anna Mancuso is a member of the Miami Herald Editorial Board. Her email: mmancuso@
Vox
3 days ago
- Vox
Mark Zuckerberg's unbelievably bleak AI vision
is a senior correspondent and head writer for Vox's Future Perfect section and has worked at Vox since 2014. He is particularly interested in global health and pandemic prevention, anti-poverty efforts, economic policy and theory, and conflicts about the right way to do philanthropy. The future is Zuck, and all of us, using AI on our sunglasses, apparently. Allison Robbert/Bloomberg via Getty Images Of all the many famous Steve Jobs stories that tech industry folks like to share, perhaps the single most famous is his 1983 pitch to then-Pepsi president John Sculley to join Apple: 'Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?' Like many things Jobs said, the pitch was wildly arrogant, self-important and self-aggrandizing, but ultimately correct. What Sculley did at Apple (mostly after firing Jobs) to sell the Macintosh and popularize personal, graphics-centered computing changed the world more than his invention of the Pepsi Challenge had. There really was a huge difference between selling Macs and selling sugar water. After listening to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg lay out his vision of how AI 'superintelligence' would change the world, though, my main reaction was: man, this guy just wants to sell us sugar water. 'Personal superintelligence'? Maybe just 'superintelligence,' it's cleaner In an Instagram video (of course) posted last week, Zuck explains that Meta's goal is to develop 'personal superintelligence for everyone,' accessed through devices like 'glasses that can see what we see, hear what we hear, and interact with us throughout the day.' 'A lot has been written about the scientific and economic advances that AI can bring,' he noted. 'And I'm really optimistic about this.' But his vision is 'different from others in the industry who want to direct AI at automating all of the valuable work': 'I think an even more meaningful impact in our lives is going to come from everyone having a personal superintelligence that helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, be a better friend, and grow to become the person that you aspire to be.' This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. The main reaction to this pitch I've seen from smart AI observers is: are you kidding? 'Superintelligence,' by definition, means a system that performs better than a human, sometimes vastly better, across most if not all domains. And the most ambitious thing Zuck can think of to make with that is… VR glasses? As Fortune's Sharon Goldman put it, while Steve Jobs called his computers 'a bicycle for the mind,' 'Zuckerberg, by contrast, imagines superintelligence as a pair of Ray-Bans that help you…be a better friend?' The lack of ambition in Zuckerberg's rhetoric is all the more striking when one considers the extreme ambition of his spending on AI. This year alone, he's hired former GitHub CEO Nat Friedman and veteran AI founder Daniel Gross; Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang (as part of a quasi-purchase of Scale, a massively important company whose training data is used by just about every AI company); Apple AI chief Ruoming Pang; and ChatGPT co-creator Shengjia Zhao, among several others. His hiring spree, and the gargantuan amounts he's willing to pay top talent, have roiled the sector for weeks now. At one competitor (former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab), Zuckerberg reportedly sent offers to more than a dozen of the company's 50 staffers, one of which was for over $1 billion over a few years, while the rest ranged from $200 million to $500 million over four years. Even for a company as rich as Meta, billion-plus offers for talent are unheard of. ($1 billion is how much Zuckerberg paid for all of Instagram in 2012.) It's a pretty vivid sign that Zuckerberg sees AI as the future of his business. But what does that future look like? I've seen the best digital minds of my generation wasted on Reels One could, very charitably, reason that Zuckerberg knows that a world of vastly superintelligent AI systems would lead to massive, far-reaching social ramifications that are not adequately summarized as 'you get smart sunglasses,' but he has concluded that most of his investors and customers aren't in a place to understand the gravity of those changes. Hence, talk about glasses. That could be what's happening, and I have some sympathy for his position if so. Trying to game out what a post-superintelligence world looks like is in fact extremely difficult, not least to those of us limited to mere human intellects. And it's usually scary — even if the changes ultimately prove positive. For all the uncertainty, there is no plausible world where people have access to 'personal superintelligence' and they and businesses do not use that to automate huge numbers of tasks, and there are a number of conceivable scenarios where that leads demand for human wage labor to totally collapse. Other scenarios see wages skyrocket. It's a tough situation for a CEO to message. But it's also worth considering the possibility that Zuckerberg means exactly what he's saying: that the AI systems his team is building are not meant to automate work but to provide a Meta-governed layer between individual human beings and the world outside of them. Facebook and Instagram are, in a sense, very crude versions of that layer, synthesizing and compressing the outside world into a digestible and addictive form people can consume throughout their days, and Zuckerberg's earlier obsession with the metaverse seemed a logical continuation. This approach has been immensely profitable. (Though, not so much the metaverse.) Imagine how much more profitable it'd be if a digital mind much smarter than Zuck's was designing it. Conversations like Zuckerberg's with the business writer Ben Thompson in May give credence to this interpretation. Zuckerberg sees four opportunities with AI: improving his products' recommendation algorithms to better target advertising, driving greater engagement on 'consumer surfaces' like Instagram Reels, 'business messaging' (i.e., businesses doing transactions through WhatsApp and Messenger, using AI), and lastly direct AI use à la ChatGPT. The promise of AI, to Zuckerberg, is that it can help him sell you more ads and convince you to spend more time watching Instagram brainrot. My reaction to that pitch was the same as AI writer Zvi Mowshowitz's: 'It was like if you took a left wing caricature of why Zuckerberg is evil, combined it with a left wing caricature about why AI is evil, and then fused them into their final form. Except it's coming directly from Zuckerberg, as explicit text, on purpose.' At least the sugar water from Pepsi tastes good. That the sixth largest company on Earth is devoting billions of dollars toward this vision is not, y'know, great. But it has a silver lining. One thing I've learned from talking to AI researchers over the years is that most of them are driven by a conviction that this thing they're building is really, really socially important. Sometimes that comes with a safety tinge ('this thing could kill us, and we need to make it so it doesn't'), sometimes with an accelerationist tinge ('this thing could liberate mankind from economic scarcity'), but either way it's usually stated with real conviction. If they only wanted money they'd go work for a hedge fund. But they also want to build something they're proud of. That character trait will, I think, cause the 'throw money at smart people until they all join' strategy that Zuckerberg is attempting to fail. If superintelligence is built, it will be built by a team that is productive due to a passionate, shared, optimistic vision for what a world with superintelligence will look like. It will be made because its makers want to change the world, not sell sugar water. A team of researchers joining primarily for the money, under a leader whose boldest vision is 'what if we sold more ads on sunglasses,' is not going to make it.
