71–80 of 128 posts
I'm being a pedant but doesn't an Echo have a mic built in? Buying an equivalent one would be ~£75 I think.
Echo also is a pretty nice wireless speaker.
I have to be honest, I got an echo for Christmas (thanks Mom!), and while it's really cool, it has only served to highlight how much amazon prime music sucks. In fact, it has only served to highlight to me how disconnected cloud music services are.
Google music has just about everything (now that it is connected to youtube), but amazon doesn't want to let its speakers play google music's music service because they want to sell you their own.
The future is a strange place right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not even remotely an ad hominem, though I imagine you just mean it's a fallacious argument in general. That being said, hardly. We already know that law enforcement can use cell phones to spy on people. There is an abstract fear that the Echo might do this in the future (enough analysis has been done to know that it does not currently), yet we know for sure that cell phones can do it currently. https://en.wiki…
It is ad hominem because you implicate anyone who worries about one device to stop worrying because you can choose from a bouquet, some other flower they should be more worried about. Gun safety says it's unwise to point a gun, even an unloaded or uncocked gun, at someone you don't wish to shoot. In the same vein, it's unsettling to have microphones and cameras around one's house _even_ if you suppose they are off. B…
I believe the fallacy you're looking for is 'fallacy of relative privation', but even then, we're still not there. Fundamentally, the issue is this:
The fear is that the microphone could be used as a listening device. From the current factual information we have available, we know, at this time, that:
1) Law enforcement agencies can and do use cell phones as listening devices, both in intercepting calls and remotely enabling the microphone.
2) It is not possible to see all traffic that is flowing through your cell phone in many cases (iPhones, non-rooted Android phones, etc)
3) It is possible to see all traffic that is flowing through your home network. If it is encrypted you might not be able to determine the specific contents, but you still have the technical possibility to see when communication occurs
4) We do not currently see any evidence that the Echo performs any sort of recording or transmission of voice data outside of when the 'wake word' is used.
You'll notice nowhere did I say these fears were completely unfounded - just that there is no evidence to suggest this is occurring, and that if it were occurring, we would not be without ability to detect it. But by the same token, these selfsame fears, that an electronic device can be used to listen in on you, are 100% confirmed to be true with cellphones. We know that they can be used to listen in on you. Therefore, if your concerns are your electronics being used as a surveillance device, then cellphones are a clear and present risk and should not be owned.
And if we're throwing around fallacy accusations, and your argument is "We shouldn't have remotely accessible microphones and cameras around, because they'll be used as surveillance devices", then you're participating with a classic slippery slope fallacy - but I don't think all of the fallacy talk is particularly productive, either.
compared with ok google and siri, echo is not much better (if not worse) in terms of intelligence. What made echo was the physical form factor. Intelligence is hard to mimic, but physical form factor is not. All google or apple needs to do is come out with with a similar speaker/mic combo and it will totally blow echo out of the water.
I'm not comfortable with the idea of everyone having far-field microphones in their homes. Cell phone spying is bad enough. If these become widespread, then ten years from now instead of a political debate about call metadata it'll be a debate about literally every word ever spoken .
This is a pretty cool experiment. As someone that recently worked on an app that was doing speech to text in near and far field, calling this a $10 echo is like calling a Honda Civic a $15K Ferrari. I'd love to see the video of the author speaking to this microphone from 10' away, or even 5' away in a room with no padding. The Echo's ability to do voice to text is like nothing that's ever come before it based on my e…
The $10 CHIP will be a $10 CHIP when and if it ships. Right now, it's a Kickstarter claiming they will ship the thing in June 2016.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, Echo is a good listener. In fact, when I ran the video on the OP's site and he said "Alexa, what time is it?" my Echo in the other room woke up and told me the time :)
That's actually one of my concerns about voice-driven interfaces, absent some sort of voice print authentication or tactile confirmation button. Imagine standing up in a crowded room and shouting "OK Google, delete everything!", or "OK Google, recite the first thouand digits of pi!"
It would also be interesting if you could create sounds that sound like commands to the algorithms, but are not easily recognizable for the user.
I've heard that the "$10" CHIP has a $20 "shipping" charge. Is that still the case?