That's kinda my point, though. You have the Google Assistant app for a legitimate reason, and its need to use your microphone is also equally legitimate...the problem comes in when Google says that they don't monitor what you're saying, or worse, they say they can't because your phone processes it all locally. They have this giant loophole that they take advantage of here, in that while they do not keep track of what you say themselves, they embed a third party service that does. While not particularly surprising given it's Google, that's shady as fuck and they shouldn't be able to say they don't monitor just because they let their little bro Alphonso do it on their behalf and they magically get off on a technicality.
nalinna
joined 1 year ago
Is that to say that it's no longer valid? Or just that it's old news? The list of apps associated with the software is still pretty extensive; Google Assistant even showed up.
Yep. Certainly wouldn't be the first time that something is made to seem altruistic but ultimately gets used in questionably-ethical ways.
Yes. It's utterly useless now (and they aren't being introduced into existing ecosystem to my knowledge). They view it as a proof of concept for more recently extinct species as well as a potential tool for restoring species to ecosystems in the future as extinction events pick up speed.
However, it should be noted that extinction events are a symptom, not the core problem, so I'm not sure exactly where we'd restore extinct species to, since human use of the land is the root cause of most ecosystem collapses, and it's unlikely that they can rebuild populations in the places they died out of (and the land probably won't be yielded back anyway).
Super cool stuff that they did regardless, but can't figure out how it's going to accomplish what they seem to want to accomplish.
Why would someone waste their money on this poll?
It's not even the people; it's their actions. If we could figure out how to regulate its use so its profit-generation capacity doesn't build on itself exponentially at the expense of the fair treatment of others and instead actively proliferate the models that help people, I'm all for it, for the record.
That is entirely true and one of my favorite things about it. I just wish there was a way to nurture more of that and less of the, "Hi, I'm Alvin and my job is to make your Fortune-500 company even more profitable...the key is to pay people less!" type of AI.
But the people with the money for the hardware are the ones training it to put more money in their pockets. That's mostly what it's being trained to do: make rich people richer.
Please correct if inaccurate, but I don't see in that article where the folks at Espressif refer to it as a backdoor, only the security company. This seems to me as though it is no more vulnerable than any other device which can be compromised by physical access, which is most of devices. The vulnerability really looks to be more in the ability to pivot to other devices remotely after one has been compromised physically, which isn't ideal, but still doesn't seem to me to be any less secure than most other devices.
view more: next ›
The only male doctor at my ob/gyn was visibly angry when I told him my experience getting the IUD. He said, "The women in this practice don't give anesthetic and it makes me furious with them." Way to be a decent human in a sea of assholes, dude.