I already did multiple times

No you didn't, because you keep saying wrong things.

you just refuse to read it

I don't need to read it, because I read it when it came out... back in 2008. I read their stuff regularly. I also read all the other stuff about this topic (AI tech). An article from 2008 is irrelevant at this point. Technology has advanced leaps and bounds in 17 years. AI wasn't even a thing back then. Things like Picovoice didn't even exist until recently.

It also says a lot that your source of truth is a near 20-year old article from Android Authority.

How often do you say Nike ?

Personally? Never.

More interesting would be “I will buy a pair of new shoes” now shoes can be mentioned in tons of context so you better have a way of separate it.

I don't know about "interesting", but I do agree that it would be much greater context to better target ads. But that's not what the discussion was about. I said way back that I'm not positioning this idea of phone's listening as an absolute certainty. My whole point was that at a technological level it's well within technical means to accomplish the whole "our phones listen to what we say" all while not draining the battery enough to be outright noticeable.

Another thing to note, is that most (if not all) of the anecdotal stories about people talking about a topic and then seeing ads about that thing are often generic conversations. Even in my own tests, which are anecdotal, confirm that. I never talk about boating. I never search anything about boats. I also never saw any ads about boats. Etc. So I did a little test on my own recently and openly talked about "getting the boat ready", "can't wait to go boating next week", "need to get the boat in the water and ready for the season", and so on. I did this for about an hour solid. Then waited and hour and visited some generic websites that show ads, and lo and behold there were lots of ads for buying a new propeller, ads for nearby marinas, ads for marina supply shops, ads for boating accessories, and so on.

Like I said, it's entirely anecdotal and in no way conclusive, but it does lead me to believe that there might be truth to the rumours. And it's the kind of thing I've heard from many other technical people who deliberately tried to trigger ads on topics they never deal with otherwise.

And also like I said before either come back with something real, or go away and concede you’re out of your depth.

You missed the joke.

I was making a joke as if kph and mph were physically distinct things and only one of them worked in each country.

You literally just proved my point. Congrats.

Let's bring the gioter look back!

a substance as dangerous as chlorine

Water is often said to be the "element of life", and we need oxygen to live. But if you add one oxygen atom to a water molecule you end up with H2O2, or hydrogen peroxide, which is deadly.

This is the thing that the majority of people don't understand about chemistry. Just because one chemical (water is a chemical, btw) has the same word in its name as another chemical that's known to be highly toxic doesn't mean they're both toxic.

Chemistry is insanely complex and we are entirely unable to evaluate the toxicity of a chemical just by its name (without prior knowledge).

No you are wrong

Lol. "Nuh-uh" doesn't work with me.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/64008486/effects-of-number-of-classes-on-inference-time-in-object-detection-api

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.

"Initial focus on PC"

I hope they're using those words correctly and I can pay it on Linux.

It's not gamification that's the issue. That aspect really held my attention and gave me consistency.

It's the push to a pay-to-win model that made me quit. They made the challenges harder and harder to complete without using boosts, and to use the boosts you had to use gems. And gems were really hard to get unless you bought them with real money. It doesn't matter if you have a super subscription (or whatever it's called), you still had to pay to get the gems.

And the prices for the gems were just as predatory and the disgusting mobile gaming industry. Never should there be an option to spend over $20 for in-game consumables, nevermind over $100. It's sick.

Give CodeBerg a look. It's starting to pick up some steam.

https://codeberg.org/

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.

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.

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?

Nevermind the why (I'm not entirely convinced it's being done), I want to know what exactly would be seen in network traffic.

Ok, you said "voice collection" which I'll assume is audio recording and then uploading to some server. That's an astonishingly bonkers and inefficient way of doing it. You run a very small model (using something like Tflite) that's trained against a few hundred keyboards (brand names, products, or product category) and run it on the background of your service. Phones already do essentially this with assistant activation listening. Then once a few hours of listening, compress the plain text detection data (10 MB of plain text can be compressed to 1 MB) and then just upload the end result. And we wouldn't be talking about megabytes, we'd be talking single digits kilobytes. An amount that wouldn't even be a blip on wireshark, especially since phones are so exceedingly chatty nowadays. Have you actually tried to wireshark phone traffic? It's just constant noise.

It's entirely possible to do. But that doesn't mean that it is being done.

You’re citing an image from a pop culture blog and are calling it science

I was being deliberately facetious. You can find similar diagrams from various studies. Granted that many of them are looking at modern AI models to ask the question about intelligence, reasoning, etc. but it highlights that it's still an open question. There's no definitive ground truth about what exactly is "intelligence", but most experts on the subject would largely agree with the gist of the diagram with maybe a few notes and adjustments of their own.

To be clear, I've worked in the field of AI for almost a decade and have a fairly in-depth perspective on the subject. Ultimately the word "intelligence" is completely accurate.

Ok, real question: what exactly would show up in network traffic?

Yes, but also no. You're underestimating advertisers' greed for data.

It's actually trivial nowadays to build a background service like that.

So you're saying your car is able to use mph when in the US? Fancy car!

Btw, I was trying to make a joke about mph being some different kind of "fuel" that's not compatible with kph, in case that wasn't clear.

How are you doing kph in the US?

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/10/6/254

What is this nonsense Euler diagram?

Science.

Did AI generate this?

Scientists did.

Oh I got the joke. I was just responding in kind