3 ms·

> Will the RAID AI crawl a stream without the streamer’s permission? > The MTN DEW RAID AI will begin crawling all concurrent Gaming livestreams from December

> Will the RAID AI crawl a stream without the streamer’s permission? > The MTN DEW RAID AI will begin crawling all concurrent Gaming livestreams from December 1 - December 8, but that doesn’t mean the AI is watching your streams or keeping any data. What the #$&@X are you talking about? If an image-recognition algorithm is crawling livestreams and verifying objects inside of them, that does mean you are watching the streams and keeping data. This is not how words work, you can't just change definitions like this, you are writing a FAQ not a post-modernist art essay. Mountain Dew is watching the stream and is keeping data: at the very least it's storing data about which streams had Mountain Dew in them and which streamers have opted in and out. And all of that data processing is happening serverside so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say there's probably other metadata being preserved too. And sure, streams are public and Mountain Dew can crawl them and they could have given an answer of "yes, we are, they're public". But how little do you have to think of your target audience to instead decide to give an answer that is this blatantly a lie and to think that it will fool people? I am going to sneak into the house of whatever advertiser wrote this and put spiders in their bed. But that doesn't mean I'll be trespassing, because apparently words mean nothing at all and I can say anything I want.

sonicanatidae 3y ago
They are using intentionally misleading terms to obfuscate something they don't want to bother explaining and if they did explain it, non-tech users wouldn't get it. I have a bag of Brown Recluse spiders I was going to throw at the ceiling fan during Christmas dinner to liven things up a bit, but I think you're idea is a better use case.
gabeio 3y ago
>This is not how words work, you can't just change definitions like this, you are writing a FAQ not a post-modernist art essay. You're assuming this FAQ wasn't written by an AI also.
- danShumway 3y ago
  <j>I don't know, I think only a real human advertiser would have the required lack of shame or self-awareness necessary to tell streamers that instead of being compensated, they were instead going to be given the opportunity to "supe" their viewers. We have to assume that even jailbroken ChatGPT would still have refused to write something quite that cringey.</j>
myself248 3y ago
I interpreted that as "pulling a list of all streams, then comparing it to the list of participants, and watching only those". They could certainly be more clear about it.
- danShumway 3y ago
  I understand why you would think that streamers were actively opting in before their streams were scanned, because you're probably a normal human being and you're probably having a normal human reaction like, "obviously streamers just sign up, how else would you even design a program like this? It's not complicated, you just put a form online." But that would be the sensible way to do it. In actuality the way they determine the participants is by doing object recognition on everyone's streams to try and figure out if a stream is already displaying Mountain Dew, and if it is then the bot sends spam messages to the streamers to ask them if they want to participate, and the only way streamers can opt out of all of that is "don't stream in the games category."
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mathgradthrow 3y ago
mountain dew advertising is a post-modern art essay.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
c0pium 3y ago
> you can't just change definitions like this Of course you can, don’t be obtuse. Words can literally mean anything the speaker wants them to, language evolves. This whole conversation is weird and unhinged. We’re talking about streams which are deliberately created to be public. From that perspective, if they’re not storing it the details about the stream then their target audience would agree that they’re not watching and storing data. This question is asking if the AI (ugh) is skynet (ugh) and is learning about streaming, and then saying “nope, just looking for a logo”. Nobody cares about this “well actually” about metadata. English is a terrible medium for communicating technical information, and it’s doubly bad when the target audience neither knows nor cares about technical details.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > language evolves Language evolves organically through public usage, not via soda FAQs. If you asked pretty much anyone on the street in any context "an AI is going to scan a video and locate on object, is it 'watching' the video" -- they would say yes. This is not a niche interpretation of what it means to watch a video. The visual data from the video output is being piped into an image recognition engine; the vast majority of the general public would call that "watching". Maybe in the future that will change, but unless Mountain Dew has a time machine hidden in their office, "language evolves" is not an excuse. > if they’re not storing it the details about the stream then their target audience would agree that they’re not watching and storing data. They are storing details about the stream, they have to or else the system doesn't work. They have to store information about which streams they've checked, haven't checked, which streams have opted in, which streams have opted out, when they last messaged the stream or spammed in chat. The FAQ also implies that they are storing frequency information about how often the logo appears, so it's not even accurate to say they're not storing data that relates to the actual contents of the stream. That's not nitpicking, it's not a technicality, we're not debating whether or not a proxy service counts as storage or talking about where data is at rest. They are just straight up lying -- there is stream and content metadata being stored on their servers and being used for the project. > and it’s doubly bad when the target audience neither knows nor cares about technical details. "Are you storing information about me" "None that you would understand" is a terrible answer for a FAQ and belittles the reader. The streams are intended to be public, they could just say, "yes we are scanning public streams and collecting metadata." People know what metadata is, it's not that complicated. There are so many simple answers they could give to this question that would be honest to what they're doing without risking confusion. "The public would be confused" is not an excuse to outright lie about what information a company is and isn't storing. Obviously it's not an excuse, this is Facebook levels of weirdness to suggest, to say "the public doesn't understand what we're storing so we don't have to inform them about it."

sonicanatidae 3y ago

They are using intentionally misleading terms to obfuscate something they don't want to bother explaining and if they did explain it, non-tech users wouldn't get it. I have a bag of Brown Recluse spiders I was going to throw at the ceiling fan during Christmas dinner to liven things up a bit, but I think you're idea is a better use case.

gabeio 3y ago

>This is not how words work, you can't just change definitions like this, you are writing a FAQ not a post-modernist art essay. You're assuming this FAQ wasn't written by an AI also.

danShumway 3y ago
<j>I don't know, I think only a real human advertiser would have the required lack of shame or self-awareness necessary to tell streamers that instead of being compensated, they were instead going to be given the opportunity to "supe" their viewers. We have to assume that even jailbroken ChatGPT would still have refused to write something quite that cringey.</j>

myself248 3y ago

I interpreted that as "pulling a list of all streams, then comparing it to the list of participants, and watching only those". They could certainly be more clear about it.

danShumway 3y ago
I understand why you would think that streamers were actively opting in before their streams were scanned, because you're probably a normal human being and you're probably having a normal human reaction like, "obviously streamers just sign up, how else would you even design a program like this? It's not complicated, you just put a form online." But that would be the sensible way to do it. In actuality the way they determine the participants is by doing object recognition on everyone's streams to try and figure out if a stream is already displaying Mountain Dew, and if it is then the bot sends spam messages to the streamers to ask them if they want to participate, and the only way streamers can opt out of all of that is "don't stream in the games category."

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mathgradthrow 3y ago

mountain dew advertising is a post-modern art essay.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

c0pium 3y ago

> you can't just change definitions like this Of course you can, don’t be obtuse. Words can literally mean anything the speaker wants them to, language evolves. This whole conversation is weird and unhinged. We’re talking about streams which are deliberately created to be public. From that perspective, if they’re not storing it the details about the stream then their target audience would agree that they’re not watching and storing data. This question is asking if the AI (ugh) is skynet (ugh) and is learning about streaming, and then saying “nope, just looking for a logo”. Nobody cares about this “well actually” about metadata. English is a terrible medium for communicating technical information, and it’s doubly bad when the target audience neither knows nor cares about technical details.

danShumway 3y ago
> language evolves Language evolves organically through public usage, not via soda FAQs. If you asked pretty much anyone on the street in any context "an AI is going to scan a video and locate on object, is it 'watching' the video" -- they would say yes. This is not a niche interpretation of what it means to watch a video. The visual data from the video output is being piped into an image recognition engine; the vast majority of the general public would call that "watching". Maybe in the future that will change, but unless Mountain Dew has a time machine hidden in their office, "language evolves" is not an excuse. > if they’re not storing it the details about the stream then their target audience would agree that they’re not watching and storing data. They are storing details about the stream, they have to or else the system doesn't work. They have to store information about which streams they've checked, haven't checked, which streams have opted in, which streams have opted out, when they last messaged the stream or spammed in chat. The FAQ also implies that they are storing frequency information about how often the logo appears, so it's not even accurate to say they're not storing data that relates to the actual contents of the stream. That's not nitpicking, it's not a technicality, we're not debating whether or not a proxy service counts as storage or talking about where data is at rest. They are just straight up lying -- there is stream and content metadata being stored on their servers and being used for the project. > and it’s doubly bad when the target audience neither knows nor cares about technical details. "Are you storing information about me" "None that you would understand" is a terrible answer for a FAQ and belittles the reader. The streams are intended to be public, they could just say, "yes we are scanning public streams and collecting metadata." People know what metadata is, it's not that complicated. There are so many simple answers they could give to this question that would be honest to what they're doing without risking confusion. "The public would be confused" is not an excuse to outright lie about what information a company is and isn't storing. Obviously it's not an excuse, this is Facebook levels of weirdness to suggest, to say "the public doesn't understand what we're storing so we don't have to inform them about it."