3 ms·
I do not work in Amazon. I side with them on this because look at this protocol: 1 Wake up w “Alexa.” 2 respond to “send message” 3 respond to “To whom?” 4
by andreyk 8y ago
I do not work in Amazon. I side with them on this because look at this protocol:
1 Wake up w “Alexa.”
2 respond to “send message”
3 respond to “To whom?”
4 respond to “[contact name], right?”
As an engineer (well, an AI researcher who used to engineer), that looks to me like they were not negligent and it was hard to predict background conversation would produce this unlikely set of inputs - it would be nice to see stats but this is the first time it is covered in the media to my knowledge. And as with the laughter story, they will now change the inputs to make it likely 1-in-a-trillion this will happen.
However, it does seem like Alexa etc. will have to be better about recognizing audio from TVs/conversations and stuff directed at it - and I am sure they are working on it.
PS comparison to CPU is not great obvs since it's about number of instances (how many times does "Alexa" get woken up by background audio - not 4ghz)
- titzer 8y agoThey would like to put this in a billion homes no doubt, and suppose that people are home, talking, a couple hours a day. Now we are talking real numbers. A few billion conversation-hours per day, 365 days in a year--suddenly one in a trillion is starting to look like it's gonna happen a couple times a year. Now if Amazon knows these probabilities--which they don't, because they clearly have not done due diligence in understanding their rapidly evolving, inscrutable voice models--they are now knowingly violating eavesdropping laws, probabilistically. This is part of the problem. People want to handwave away small probabilities when they should be busting their asses to make probabilities actually 0--solutions like not having this crap in their house at all.