Hundreds of smartphone apps are monitoring users through their microphones
Hundreds of smartphone apps are monitoring users through their microphones
www.the-independent.com
Your smartphone is listening to you
157 comments
-
It would cost trillions and half the battery life. Just because you dont understand something doesnt make you right. Your entire argument is shattered in the link I provided you earlier. Its not a few kb needed and if done locally a huge battery eater. Not to mention that the cost to have any use of it would exceed the entire value of the admarket.
there are plenty of people that can find shit in the noise on wireshark if there was anything like what you are suggesting.
Also there is a teapot in orbit around jupiter. Prove me wrong.
-
Just because you dont understand
Lol. My dude, I'm a developer who specializes in AI.
It would cost trillions
I have no clue how you came to that number. I could (and partially have) whipped up a prototype in a few days.
half the battery life
Hardly. Does Google assistant half battery life? No, so why would this? Besides, you would just need to listen to the mic and record audio only if the sound is above a certain volume threshold. Then once every few hours batch process the audio. Then send the resulting text data (in the KBs) up to a server.
The average ad data that's downloaded for in-app display is orders of magnitude larger than what would be uploaded.
there are plenty of people that can find shit in the noise on wireshark
How are they going to see data that's encrypted and bundled with other innocuous data?
-
Litarally all your questions are answered in the link i pointed out twice now. Try it. Hey google doesnt take much 1k wake words a lot more.. your math doesnt add up anywhere close to reality.
-
I don't have any questions. This is something I know a lot about at a very technical level.
The difference between one wake word and one thousand is marginal at most. At the hardware level the mic is still listening non-stop, and the audio is still being processed. It *has" to do that otherwise it wouldn't be able to look for even one word. And then from there it doesn't matter if it's one word or 10k. It's still processing the audio data through a model.
And that's the key part, it doesn't matter if the model has one output or thousands, the data still bounces through each layer of the network. The processing requirements are exactly the same (assuming the exact same model).
This is the part you simply do not understand.
-
Seems you don't, and started your line with a question and continued to do so despite being provided with answers repeatedly . Is there some kink of roleplaying AI dev? You don't really seem to have done your homework to do so.
Despite what some believe, keyword detection like “Hey Google” is only used to wake up a device from a low power state to perform more powerful listening, it’s not helpful for data tracking. Increasing the number of keywords to thousands or more (which you would need to cover the range of possible ad topics) requires more processing power and therefore defeats the purpose. Your battery would drain very noticeably if your phone was always listening for thousands of possible words.
-
keyword detection like “Hey Google” is only used to wake up a device from a low power state to perform more powerful listening
That's more applicable for something like a Google Mini. A phone is powerful enough, especially with the NPU most phones have now, to perform those detecting efficiently without stepping up the CPU state.
Is there some kink of roleplaying AI dev?
Is there some kink on your side in pretending you're smart? You have no idea who I am or what I know.
Increasing the number of keywords to thousands or more (which you would need to cover the range of possible ad topics) requires more processing power
Again, you're showing your lack of knowledge here. A model doesn't use more power if trained on one class or a hundred. The amount of cycles is the same in both instances.
It's usually smart speakers that have a low powered chip that processes the wake word and fires up a more powerful chip. That doesn't exist in phones.
Edit: just to hammer home a point. Your example of "hey Google" simply waking up the device for more complex processing just proves my point. The scenario we're talking about is the same as the wake word. We're not looking to do any kind of complex processing. We're just counting the number of times a word is triggered. That's it. No reasoning out the meaning, no performing actions, no understanding of a question and then performing a search to provide a response. It's literally a "wake-word" counter.
-
No you are wrong. Seems your making things up on the go. More wake words to listen to more battery drain. Fact.
But sure lets play. Now that you used your "wake word counter" what use would that have ? You have ZERO context then. Completely useless .
-
No you are wrong
Lol. "Nuh-uh" doesn't work with me.
Seems your making things up on the go
I speak from knowledge and experience. What do you bring to the table?
More wake words to listen to more battery drain. Fact.
1 trained class = 1 model
100 trained classes = 1 model
Tell me how running 1 model would drain more battery than running 1 model? I'll wait...
You have ZERO context then. Completely useless .
The person said "NIKE" a few times, show them ads for shoes. The person said "mechanic" "car" "fixed" around the same time, show them ads for local car repair shops.
You don't need the full context of what was said to get some context from just the words. The spacing in time and the revelations relationship between words can give you a whole lot of context. Plenty to target ads.
Now, either come back with something real, or go away and conceed you're out of your depth.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
157 comments