3 ms·

None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Stop and think how ludicrous it is th

None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to say to the room "pick a random song and play it loud" requires fiber on ocean floors and huge buildings running servers and the rest of it. We're being socialized into thinking privacy is an impediment to progress. It is just a very bad idea to create a turn-key surveillance society and hope and cross your fingers it never gets used.

Klathmon 7y ago
>None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Yes, but I don't want to store every single movie, TV show, song, and news story locally and find a way to get them to myself without using the internet. I'd love if more stuff happened locally on these devices, and I experiment with various other systems every now and then. I even have a fully self-hosted home automation system running on open source software using local-only radio systems (z-wave) to control things like lights, garage doors, and door locks. There are things that do require some kind of internet access though, and other things that become much more reliable and easy to use when internet connected. >Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to... I have, and so has my family. And we have made the decision that the tradeoffs are worth it for us. Why can't people understand that I'm an adult, everyone in my household is an adult, and we are able to understand and comprehend the situation, and make a conscientious decision to accept the trade offs. I'm not an idiot, I know there are risks, but the risks are low enough for me and my family to make it worth it. Just like how there are risks simply just getting in a car, and there are risks every time I turn my oven on, but they are all acceptable. Maybe you should stop and think just how ludicrous it is that you seem to think it's impossible that someone else could find value in these devices, and that some are okay with limited tradeoffs with their privacy in return for devices and services which improve their lives. And maybe you should listen when someone tells you that they've weighed the pros and cons and decided it was worth it, rather than quickly jumping to the conclusion that they are wrong, didn't give it any thought, or are somehow being tricked.
- eternalban 7y ago
  > Maybe you should stop and think just how ludicrous it is that you seem to think it's impossible that someone else could find value in these devices You are claiming I am saying this. I am saying (a) we can get these capabilities without damaging society so lets give it try, and (b) your "choices" affect the rest of us. It is like second hand smoking.
  - Klathmon 7y ago
    That's fair, and there are absolutely discussions to be had around the "second hand smoke" kind of impacts these technologies can have. (I really like that metaphor) But I think it's wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I agree that there absolutely needs to be more regulation around this area. I'd personally like a law that mandates a tone or sound (and lights) when one of these devices is recording. I'd love some laws on the books in the US that gives those who don't want in this ecosystem a quick and easy way of ensuring they won't end up in them. I also think that there are a LOT of things that all of the big players in this space can do better (like the by-default recording and storing of all the voice data indefinitely). But I also think that there has to be compromises. Saying it's ludicrous that these devices use the internet is the pendulum swinging way too far in the other direction, the internet-connectedness of these is basically the biggest selling point. But I'd be over the moon if they did all of the simple commands "locally", and I'd love if users were given more control over their information (something like a weekly/monthly/quarterly email asking if Google can use the following list of recordings to train their models would be awesome IMO). There is so much hyperbole and just straight up wrong information gets thrown about so often with this stuff, and there's a lot of extremism when it comes to privacy, especially on this website (I know this is a loaded word, and I don't mean to include any additional connotations with it, I just don't know how else to describe this). I also don't want to enable turnkey surveillance, but at the same time I don't want to live as a luddite to prevent it. There has to be some middle ground, and if that means it makes dragnet surveillance easier while improving the lives of many people, then I might be okay with it.
    - eternalban 7y ago
raxxorrax 7y ago
You are downvoted but I believe you are essentially correct. It is ridiculous to send voice data all over the globe to be interpreted and send back to IOT devices. Unnecessary and certainly not elegant, since mic and device are most often in very close proximity. Good for learning to analyze voice on the other hand, but your point is still valid. We will get a compressed voice service that easily can be held in a small device at some point, that makes this ridiculous data exchange unnecessary.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  At I/O Google announced on-device transcription and NLP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LQX9cLnZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LQX9cLnZk
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  Windows has had no-internet-required voice recognition built in since XP. It is available for any programmer to use for any purpose through importing a DLL, and isn't too complicated to use. With an unconstrained grammar defined, it's something like 85% accurate, but depending on how much you constrain the grammar, can get incredibly accurate. Meanwhile my mother's flip phone in 2003ish also had on device voice control, and it worked pretty damn effectively

Klathmon 7y ago

>None of these capabilities have an existential requirement for a centralized networked infrastructure spanning the globe. Yes, but I don't want to store every single movie, TV show, song, and news story locally and find a way to get them to myself without using the internet. I'd love if more stuff happened locally on these devices, and I experiment with various other systems every now and then. I even have a fully self-hosted home automation system running on open source software using local-only radio systems (z-wave) to control things like lights, garage doors, and door locks. There are things that do require some kind of internet access though, and other things that become much more reliable and easy to use when internet connected. >Stop and think how ludicrous it is that your being able to... I have, and so has my family. And we have made the decision that the tradeoffs are worth it for us. Why can't people understand that I'm an adult, everyone in my household is an adult, and we are able to understand and comprehend the situation, and make a conscientious decision to accept the trade offs. I'm not an idiot, I know there are risks, but the risks are low enough for me and my family to make it worth it. Just like how there are risks simply just getting in a car, and there are risks every time I turn my oven on, but they are all acceptable. Maybe you should stop and think just how ludicrous it is that you seem to think it's impossible that someone else could find value in these devices, and that some are okay with limited tradeoffs with their privacy in return for devices and services which improve their lives. And maybe you should listen when someone tells you that they've weighed the pros and cons and decided it was worth it, rather than quickly jumping to the conclusion that they are wrong, didn't give it any thought, or are somehow being tricked.

eternalban 7y ago
> Maybe you should stop and think just how ludicrous it is that you seem to think it's impossible that someone else could find value in these devices You are claiming I am saying this. I am saying (a) we can get these capabilities without damaging society so lets give it try, and (b) your "choices" affect the rest of us. It is like second hand smoking.
- Klathmon 7y ago
  That's fair, and there are absolutely discussions to be had around the "second hand smoke" kind of impacts these technologies can have. (I really like that metaphor) But I think it's wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I agree that there absolutely needs to be more regulation around this area. I'd personally like a law that mandates a tone or sound (and lights) when one of these devices is recording. I'd love some laws on the books in the US that gives those who don't want in this ecosystem a quick and easy way of ensuring they won't end up in them. I also think that there are a LOT of things that all of the big players in this space can do better (like the by-default recording and storing of all the voice data indefinitely). But I also think that there has to be compromises. Saying it's ludicrous that these devices use the internet is the pendulum swinging way too far in the other direction, the internet-connectedness of these is basically the biggest selling point. But I'd be over the moon if they did all of the simple commands "locally", and I'd love if users were given more control over their information (something like a weekly/monthly/quarterly email asking if Google can use the following list of recordings to train their models would be awesome IMO). There is so much hyperbole and just straight up wrong information gets thrown about so often with this stuff, and there's a lot of extremism when it comes to privacy, especially on this website (I know this is a loaded word, and I don't mean to include any additional connotations with it, I just don't know how else to describe this). I also don't want to enable turnkey surveillance, but at the same time I don't want to live as a luddite to prevent it. There has to be some middle ground, and if that means it makes dragnet surveillance easier while improving the lives of many people, then I might be okay with it.
  - eternalban 7y ago

raxxorrax 7y ago

You are downvoted but I believe you are essentially correct. It is ridiculous to send voice data all over the globe to be interpreted and send back to IOT devices. Unnecessary and certainly not elegant, since mic and device are most often in very close proximity. Good for learning to analyze voice on the other hand, but your point is still valid. We will get a compressed voice service that easily can be held in a small device at some point, that makes this ridiculous data exchange unnecessary.

cameronbrown 7y ago
At I/O Google announced on-device transcription and NLP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LQX9cLnZk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9LQX9cLnZk
mrguyorama 7y ago
Windows has had no-internet-required voice recognition built in since XP. It is available for any programmer to use for any purpose through importing a DLL, and isn't too complicated to use. With an unconstrained grammar defined, it's something like 85% accurate, but depending on how much you constrain the grammar, can get incredibly accurate. Meanwhile my mother's flip phone in 2003ish also had on device voice control, and it worked pretty damn effectively