Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 102 posts

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#91

Post by infotainment »

elric wrote: post #90
vunderba wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Spying on people is not cool" I don't particularly like this device mainly due because of the cloud related vulnerabilities - if it used all off-line models, I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to it. On the other hand, let's not be deliberately disingenuous. The goal of this device is to record conversations that you're part of , which one would hardly call "spying" in any conventional sense. That's why one-party recor…

If you're part of a conversation, and want to capture part of it, is it really that hard to ask the other parties whether they're cool with it? If you don't, you're effectively spying on them, regardless of how much you sugarcoat it or whatever some states consider to be legal.

You’re not considering a critical set of edge cases.

For example, what if you’re being threatened by a coworker and wish to report it with some kind of evidence?

“Excuse me good sir, might I record your threats so that I can report you?” is probably not going to work.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#92

Post by olejorgenb »

This is super interesting IF they add an clear option to configure the providers so it's possible to only use on-device processing / self-hosted providers.

EDIT: from the FAQ in their discord:

> Q6: Will there be other STT (Speech To Text) Services allowed?

> Yes! We currently use Deepgram while we are developing the app but we plan to update the settings so users can choose a wide range of STT services like OpenAI's Whisper, Deepgram and we want to allow users to use there own hosted server for this.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#93

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

natpalmer1776 wrote: post #84
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment made me think about it differently, thanks. We don't need to jam these adversarially, we need a wireless protocol that enables polite behavior. Imagine if you were walking around broadcasting "I'm recording" and you run across somebody broadcasting "please don't record". The devices could prompt a conversation between humans. Changing the dynamic to one that's resolved initially (rather than later, when…

Except this "problem" has already been resolved (in the US) at a legal level; Look up your states stance on one-party vs. two-party consent for recording private conversations. The majority (39/50) of states only require the consent of a single party to record a conversation. If you want to take issue with other people recording conversations they have with you, that is something you should take up with your state's…

Wherever possible I think we should prefer ways of getting along with each other which make the state irrelevant.

It's never polite to record when you know the other party does not consent, but I'm not sure it should be illegal.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#94

Post by elric »

infotainment wrote: post #91
elric wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're part of a conversation, and want to capture part of it, is it really that hard to ask the other parties whether they're cool with it? If you don't, you're effectively spying on them, regardless of how much you sugarcoat it or whatever some states consider to be legal.

You’re not considering a critical set of edge cases. For example, what if you’re being threatened by a coworker and wish to report it with some kind of evidence? “Excuse me good sir, might I record your threats so that I can report you?” is probably not going to work.

Oh come on, this is a ridiculous discussion of silly pedantry. You're interpreting what I'm saying in bad faith. Of course there are edge cases, and that's fine, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#95

Post by squigz »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #93
natpalmer1776 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except this "problem" has already been resolved (in the US) at a legal level; Look up your states stance on one-party vs. two-party consent for recording private conversations. The majority (39/50) of states only require the consent of a single party to record a conversation. If you want to take issue with other people recording conversations they have with you, that is something you should take up with your state's…

Wherever possible I think we should prefer ways of getting along with each other which make the state irrelevant. It's never polite to record when you know the other party does not consent, but I'm not sure it should be illegal.

Not everyone is polite. One might argue that most people aren't.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#96

Post by johann8384 »

squigz wrote: post #95
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wherever possible I think we should prefer ways of getting along with each other which make the state irrelevant. It's never polite to record when you know the other party does not consent, but I'm not sure it should be illegal.

Not everyone is polite. One might argue that most people aren't.

Wherever possible I think we should prefer ways of getting along with each other.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#97

Post by squigz »

johann8384 wrote: post #96
squigz wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone is polite. One might argue that most people aren't.

Wherever possible I think we should prefer ways of getting along with each other.

So do I. And maybe that works on an individual or small-scale level, but it sort of falls apart when talking about a society with tens of millions (or more...) of people with vastly different cultures, values, upbringings, beliefs... We can't just rely on everyone "getting along": we need rules and guidelines. We need laws.

Even in this thread you can see differing opinions on the privacy aspects of this device. When talking about something as important as privacy, I don't think we can afford to just hope everyone agrees with us and... what, ignore the people who don't? That doesn't seem good for society or people living in them.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#98

Post by kkielhofner »

Omi has a pretty interesting architecture that has been completely open-sourced:

- The device itself is a Nordic Semiconductor BLE chip with GPIO, mic, and BLE.

- Audio is streamed (as OPUS) via BLE to the associated mobile device where some initial processing is handled.

- The audio is then passed to a FastAPI-based backend API service that handles integrations with Deepgram, etc.

Overall I think it's a clever way to handle this: you get to use very cheap hardware that sips power (battery) while utilizing the connectivity of the associated mobile device whether it be WiFi or cellular.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#99

Post by nickthegreek »

kkielhofner wrote: post #98

Omi has a pretty interesting architecture that has been completely open-sourced: - The device itself is a Nordic Semiconductor BLE chip with GPIO, mic, and BLE. - Audio is streamed (as OPUS) via BLE to the associated mobile device where some initial processing is handled. - The audio is then passed to a FastAPI-based backend API service that handles integrations with Deepgram, etc. Overall I think it's a clever way t…

I wish it had settings to easily replace deepgram with a self hosted whisper or equivalent tech.

Re: Show HN: Omi – Open-source AI wearable for capturing conversations

#100

Post by Forgeties79 »

squigz wrote: post #97
johann8384 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wherever possible I think we should prefer ways of getting along with each other.

So do I. And maybe that works on an individual or small-scale level, but it sort of falls apart when talking about a society with tens of millions (or more...) of people with vastly different cultures, values, upbringings, beliefs... We can't just rely on everyone "getting along": we need rules and guidelines. We need laws. Even in this thread you can see differing opinions on the privacy aspects of this device. When…

To expand on this: A lot of this is because even if 90% of people get along/generally agree, it only takes a fraction of that remaining 10% to throw a wrench into everyone’s collective gears. The Internet makes it very easy for a couple of people to make a lot of trouble for thousands with minimal effort
Post reply on HN