156
submitted 2 weeks ago by pooh@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Camdat@hexbear.net 50 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This is maybe my biggest pet peeve. These companies are not listening to you in any meaningful way.

You can trivially confirm this by hooking up your home network to Wireshark and filtering packets.

Other reasons:

  1. They can get all of this information elsewhere: searches, ad pixels, location capturing etc.
  2. Processing audio data is basically impossible on-device in a useful way, and the network infrastructure to support mass transcriptions on the cloud would be on the order of billions.
  3. It would be a massive endeavor to cover up the millions of hours of audio data that would need to be analyzed by the lowest paid and most unhappy workers in the industry (content labelers and moderators)

Now I'm sure this is some marketers wet dream, but the logistical and PR nightmare this would create dissuades all but the dumbest ad agencies. This is mostly just terrible tech journalism.

[-] hotcouchguy@hexbear.net 17 points 2 weeks ago

Eh, I dunno. I remember making exactly those points 20 years ago, but I think it's pretty feasible now. There are open source NNs that look like they can do this locally on mediocre phones. And if the output is garbage quality, that's ok, it just has to be good enough to sell some ads. I think it's largely feasible, although I'm sure it's inflated by startups looking to impress clients and investors.

[-] Camdat@hexbear.net 12 points 2 weeks ago

Feel free to Wireshark your smart devices and confirm what I've said yourself. The most efficient way to do this is the pixels that already exist on almost every site.

On-device NNs use insane amounts of processing, even on "high-end" phones. You would notice if there was a always-on NN running on your device, this is also something you can try for yourself.

[-] hotcouchguy@hexbear.net 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

And what exactly am I looking for in wireshark? A few KB of encrypted text data occasionally sent to who-knows-where? Mixed in among a flood of other tracking bullshit and general wasteful bloat? Yeah lemme go check real quick.

Computationally, we've had low-quallity speech to text on home PCs for like 30 years, and we've had OK-quality NN implementations for like 15 years. Yes it would be a bit wasteful, but a trimmed-down NN could easily hide among the general bloat of modern software.

Yes it would be kind of a clunky and impractical way to collect data compared to other methods, but it's definitely plausible that an adtech startup could hack together a semi-functional version of this and then slap it in a slide deck. It would let them say "AI" more times during their pitch.

[-] Camdat@hexbear.net 11 points 2 weeks ago

You can filter by device. Leave your suspect device connected to your network for a few days, filter by destination and review. Also keep an eye on CPU usage.

If your devices have a ton of random outgoing network requests you're already being tracked in a myriad of other ways and need to lock your shit down.

I've done this before, there's not as much network bloat as you might think.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
156 points (99.4% liked)

technology

23174 readers
124 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS