Would love to see some data backing how strong the effect is.
663 karma · joined May 4, 2009
Would love to see some data backing how strong the effect is.
I know some of the criticism of Meta: many people don't like the way their products are optimized for engagement. I've heard about their weird AI bots interacting on their platform as if they were people. And I know people of all political stripes have had complaints about content moderation and their algorithm.
But all of that is within the bounds of the law and their terms of service.
None of it would remotely approach something like: bypassing the well-advertised features in the glasses that show when the camera is in use and secretly recording things to train AI. It's hard to imagine any company's lawyers approving something like that. (this sounds like what many commenters believe is happening)
FWIW, I suspect this is the relevant section of the Privacy policy:
> "When you use the Meta AI service on your AI Glasses (if available for your device), we use your information, like Media and audio recordings of your voice to provide the service."
from: https://www.meta.com/legal/privacy-policy/
if so, "to provide the service" is doing a lot of work
It's certainly possible that it's something much more surprising / sinister, but there is a fairly logical combination of settings that I could see a company could argue lets them use the data for training.
I'm also very certain that few users with these settings would expect the images to be shown to actual people, so I'm not defending Meta.
I wish this article (or Meta) were a bit clearer about the specific connection between the device settings and use and when humans get access to the images.
My settings are:
- [OFF] "Share additional data" - Share data about your Meta devices to help improve Meta products.
- [OFF] "Cloud media" - Allow your photos and videos to be sent to Meta's cloud for processing and temporary storage.
I'm not sure whether my settings would prevent my media from being used as described in the article.
Also, it's not clear which data is being used for training:
- random photos / videos taken
- only use of "Meta AI" (e.g., "Hey Meta, can you translate this sign")
As much as I've liked my Meta Ray Ban's I'm going to need clarity here before I continue using them.
TBH, if it were only use of Meta AI, I'd "get it" but probably turn that feature off (I barely use it as-is).
Seems to fit with real-world trends that confuse and frustrate me. I'm not saying we need a censorship-proof world, just that I find this quite jarring. I suspect I might be missing some context.
- Provide good pay/benefits
- Provide a positive culture for employees
- Employees are encouraged to have a life outside work
- Are run in such a way that good decisions are made and the company seems headed for continued success
- Look good on your resume
It would be entirely reasonable to implement DSU all within an app's own codebase, particularly until there's a production-ready library/tool-set. The downside would be that you'd probably end up re-implementing a lot of what Kitsune provides.
For our purposes (evaluating Kitsune-style updating on a variety of server programs), it made sense that we'd want to have a common toolset that we applied to all of the programs.
I moved on (graduated!) from the project in 2012 and the code that has been released is pretty much where I left it at that time. An undergrad collaborator was doing neat work on updating Tor, so that code continued to evolve a bit after I left.
I think there may still be folks at UMD working in some ways with Kitsune, but I'm not up on the details.
You can find all the modified programs (redis, etc) here: https://github.com/kitsune-dsu
It seems that the only criteria for interestingness or laudability that you'll accept is to have overcome underprivileged circumstances. I think that's a perfectly fine factor, but I'm personally interested in reading profiles of people for LOTS of other reasons: impressive accomplishments, impressive problem solving, overcoming/motivated by bad things happening to you or your close family, personal struggle, unusual ideas / perspective, hard work, humor, ... and many more (some that I'm not even aware of).
If a person's story has the right weighting of factors like that, I'm interested. And Martine Rothblatt's story was WELL OVER the bar for being someone who I'd want to learn about.
Do you think this cult is dangerous because you believe all cults/religions are, or do you see something particularly worrisome here?
Sure, tons of people live fortunate lives by skating forward on the momentum of a privileged upbringing. But I get exactly the opposite vibe from this article.
I think it's very unlikely that this is in the works since, if it were, you'd expect Google to have thrown significant weight towards kotlin development (https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin/graphs/contributors).
I see the standard static FP features (from ML, Haskell, Scala, F#) with the syntactic flavor or Rust and some C# tossed in.