Insecure Deebot robot vacuums collect photos and audio to train AI
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
also it's whisky one xray mike, which rolls off the tongue
Now that’s fascinating - why not? Is computer vision just boring pattern recognition and really does not have “concepts” underlying it - if so 90% of the AI hype is false?
There must be several phds in that at least :-)
IIRR it’s a debate as to the difference between 99% of the time It predicts the next pixel will be fleshy and the pixel next to it is background this making something that looks fingery (and so when presented with An odd angle that 99% drops crazily” or that somehow there is a executive function that has evolved that gets a concept of finger with movement, musculature etc
It’s the “somehow evolved” part that is where I have my concerns.
Predictive ability based on billions images, sounds good. Executive function - how does that work? But at some point we are playing “what is consciousness” games.
Would love to hear more rigourous thought than mine - any links gratefully received:-)
In my experience it's more like three to six. But your argument's still valid. There is a concept
I have no clue how an AI may find the gender (which is in the mind) of someone through x-rays alone.
The more recent and somewhat controversial concept of it being an identity isn't the only sense of the word.
It used to be the case, yes, I agree, but these days people are referring to gender identity when they talk about gender, IME.
I assume counting the number of ribs is not what is meant …
https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-reveals-why-ai-analyzed-medi...
“We found that even state-of-the-art models which are optimally performant in data similar to their training sets are not optimal — that is, they do not make the best trade-off between overall and subgroup performance — in novel settings,” Ghassemi says. “Unfortunately, this is actually how a model is likely to be deployed. Most models are trained and validated with data from one hospital, or one source, and then deployed widely.”
ML is by now mostly a proven technique with known limitations. E.g. being unable to deal correctly with situations not present in the training data. Generative AI is an offshoot of this, where people largely seem to like pretending those known limitations don't apply for vague reasons.
> Ecovacs robot vacuums, which have been found to suffer from critical cybersecurity flaws... > An Ecovacs spokesperson confirmed the company uses the data collected as part of its product improvement program to train its AI models.
Legislation worldwide needs to catch up with tech badly.
I mean, in the end, it's just how you frame it, so it surely must be a viable class action lawsuit. When a teenager playfully hacks into someone's completely unprotected IoT anyone could walk into, he is breaking the law for some reason. When your business is not doing anything "wrong", but it provides a technical service targeted to businesses who actually produce malware and do harmful stuff like that, you can end up in prison for a lifetime. So surely there must be a way to frame this kind of thing as criminal activity too.
Here's a title you can reuse freely for the next decade or so.
(Startup/public/private equity owned) company <IOT device>'s collect data you don't want them collecting, use it for profit to your detriment, and didn't bother securing any of it because they don't care.
Product reviewers need to explicitly state that the cameras/mics/whatevs of devices have been used for nefarious purposes other than what is advertised on the box.
But we should not just sweep everything under the rug because a couple of nerds "knows about it" because there's a heck of a lot more people that do not.
Could work. But, unfortunately those CEOs make the law.
In the event of incidents that result in mass deaths (oil spills, etc), tried as if mass murderers for the board.
CEOs are too often just scapegoats for the evils of a board.
If we do nothing because of the "it doesn't work" in a manner you think fitting, then we'll make no progress. It's yet another example of a choice between doing anything versus doing nothing because the perfect answer isn't available.
Was this ever a problem for Microsoft, Google or Apple ? /s
A new sucker is born every minute. If the only time the name and shame is mentioned is when it happens, then those new borns will potentially never hear about it.
Why do they preach to the choir? Because that's how you get them to sing.