Thanks for the info! I guess that’s ultimately what I’m looking for more about: how much do we know about cellular traffic? Obviously with encryption we can’t just directly read cell signals to find out what’s being sent, so do people just record the volume of data being sent in individual packets and make educated guesses?

It seems plausible to run a simple(non-AI) algorithm to isolate probable conversations and send stripped and compressed audio chunks along with normal data. I assume that’s still probably too hard to hide, but if anyone out there knows of someone that’s looked for this stuff, I’d love to check it out.

It’s almost like they were asking about sources for people looking or something.

If you’re not going to contribute, why are you wasting people’s time?

It’s a reasonable explanation, and what I typically assume to be true. Still, I’m curious about the actual mechanics, and if it potentially could be being done by Google without the larger tech industry being aware of it.

That makes sense, but isn’t it assuming they’re processing data on the device? I would expect them to send raw audio back to be processed by Google ad services. Obviously it wouldn’t work without signal either, but that’s hardly a limitation.

As someone else pointed out, how does the google song recognition work? That’s active without triggering the light indicating audio recording, and is at least processing enough audio data to identify songs.

As someone relatively ignorant about the mechanics of something like this, would it not make more sense that the app would be getting this data from the Android OS, with Google’s knowledge and cooperation?

The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation) tends to be the google feed itself, so it seems reasonable to me that they could be using and selling that information to others as well, and merely disguising how the data were acquired.

deleted by creator

Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:

AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

So who are you voting for then? You continue to avoid the real question.

‘Not supporting a genocide’ is not a candidate running for election.

Nobody here wants to support genocide. It’s not brave statement, it’s fucking common sense. But the options are ‘a guy who’s weakly attempting to deescalate things’ and ‘hurry up and finish your genocide already’. If you truly don’t want to support genocide, there’s a clear pick.

How do you have so much time to spend on this website trying to convince people not to vote? How does someone so passionately stand for absolutely nothing? I’ve seen these same posts from you over and over and over again, yet you never actually have anything to say besides ‘both sides bad, don’t vote.’

If you have a better option, I’d love to hear it. But if not, maybe shut the fuck up and quit turfing for Trump.

Obviously, most of Mega’s traffic is piracy, they have no interest in doing that. The point is it’s an actual comparison instead of the nonsense you brought up.

Of course no individual site is going to singlehandedly stop criminal acts. Glad you agree it would be exactly as effective as I suggested.

I mean, I know Google has been shitty lately, but Wikipedia isn’t hard to find: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(penology)

I’d wager Nintendo has put some fear into a few folks considering developing emulators, but that’s the only comparison to be made here. The lack of any real consequences for individuals downloading roms is why so many are happy to publicly proclaim their piracy.

Now, I bet if megaupload added an AI that checked users uploads for copyrighted titles and gave everyone trying to upload them a warning about possible jail time, we’d see a hell of a lot less roms and movies on mega.

But having that tracking shown to you has a very powerful psychological effect.

It’s pretty well established that increasing penalties for crimes does next to nothing to prevent those crimes. But what does reduce crime rates is showing how people were caught for crimes, making people believe that they are less likely to ‘get away with it’.

Being confronted with your own searches is an immediate reminder that the searcher is doing something illegal, and that they are not doing so unnoticed. That’s wildly different than abstractly knowing that you’re probably being tracked somewhere by somebody among billions of other people.

I fully don’t get why people are reacting so much to this. Why the fuck shouldn’t I vote against Biden in the primary? He’s going to be the nominee regardless, this is exactly the time for Democrats to get out those protest votes.

“Most of the time, when people ask me a question, it’s the wrong question and they just didn’t know to ask a different question instead.”

“I’ve tried asking ChatGPT “How do I get the relative path from a string that might be either an absolute URI or a relative path?” It spat out 15 lines of code for doing it manually. I ain’t gonna throw that maintenance burden into my codebase. So I clarified: “I want a library that does this in a single line.” And it found one.”

You see the irony right? I genuinely can’t fathom your intent when telling this story, but it is an absolutely stellar example.

You can’t give a good answer when people don’t ask the right questions. ChatGPT answers are only as good as the prompts. As far as being a “plagiarizing, shameless bullshitter of a monkey paw” I still don’t think it’s all that different from the results you get from people. If you ask a coworker the same question you asked chatGPT, you’re probably going to get a line copied from a Google search that may or may not work.

How is that structurally different from how a human answers a question? We repeat an answer we “know” if possible, assemble something from fragments of knowledge if not, and just make something up from basically nothing if needed. The main difference I see is a small degree of self reflection, the ability to estimate how ‘good or bad’ the answer likely is, and frankly plenty of humans are terrible at that too.

It’s only a ‘fair analogy’ if you’re comparing two things you own. You make videos for Tiktok. They own that content, not you.

My understanding is that the monitor’s job is to report information to the judge, not make decisions for them. Offering up her own accusations of fraud could easily be overstepping her position.

My experience has been the opposite. The boomers think it’s gonna do everything for them, and the young people I know think it’s gonna destroy the world.

The same can be said about any random piece of human created art.