4 ms·

I wouldn't be so quick to take their own description as fact.

eloff 5y ago
If you can't trust anything or anyone in life, that's a hard way to live. Yeah, they could by lying - but they'd be opening themselves up to lawsuits for questionable gain. It would be a dumb risk/reward calculation. That's not to say companies (or people) don't do dumb things, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to believe otherwise.
- bingidingi 5y ago
  I didn't say anyone or anything, in this case we're talking about a company that data mines as one of their primary business models that has been caught lying about the extent of data collection multiple times. They've also been sued successfully multiple times and have settled cases out of court (i.e., paid settlements privately). I'm not sure what happened, but there used to be a time where not trusting a company like Google would be the smart stance to take. How could anyone with that much power possibly be trustworthy?
  - ezekg 5y ago
    The tides have shifted, it seems. People now default to trusting big tech, trusting big govt, trusting big pharma. It was a lot of work, years of propaganda, but they did it!
  - eloff 5y ago
    If you don't trust them to abide by their contracts and agreements, don't use their services. That seems like a minimum requirement to do business with any party. No point complaining that other people are willing to do business with them.
- Terretta 5y ago
  Over the last decade, most speech-to-text services admitted keeping and humans listening to source recordings beyond what was disclosed in terms of service. In fact, one of the early “AI/ML” transcription services (which at the time blew away competitors including Google) turned out to be almost zero machine processing, almost entirely a human transcription farm in Egypt. With almost 100% of the services, including those provided by members of FAANG, admitting this, it seems the risk/reward calc didn’t deter, and a “give the benefit of the doubt” algo seems inappropriate.

If you can't trust anything or anyone in life, that's a hard way to live. Yeah, they could by lying - but they'd be opening themselves up to lawsuits for questionable gain. It would be a dumb risk/reward calculation. That's not to say companies (or people) don't do dumb things, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to believe otherwise.

bingidingi 5y ago
I didn't say anyone or anything, in this case we're talking about a company that data mines as one of their primary business models that has been caught lying about the extent of data collection multiple times. They've also been sued successfully multiple times and have settled cases out of court (i.e., paid settlements privately). I'm not sure what happened, but there used to be a time where not trusting a company like Google would be the smart stance to take. How could anyone with that much power possibly be trustworthy?
- ezekg 5y ago
  The tides have shifted, it seems. People now default to trusting big tech, trusting big govt, trusting big pharma. It was a lot of work, years of propaganda, but they did it!
- eloff 5y ago
  If you don't trust them to abide by their contracts and agreements, don't use their services. That seems like a minimum requirement to do business with any party. No point complaining that other people are willing to do business with them.
Terretta 5y ago
Over the last decade, most speech-to-text services admitted keeping and humans listening to source recordings beyond what was disclosed in terms of service. In fact, one of the early “AI/ML” transcription services (which at the time blew away competitors including Google) turned out to be almost zero machine processing, almost entirely a human transcription farm in Egypt. With almost 100% of the services, including those provided by members of FAANG, admitting this, it seems the risk/reward calc didn’t deter, and a “give the benefit of the doubt” algo seems inappropriate.