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

Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

juno-labs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 178 posts

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#151

Post by stego-tech »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #146
stego-tech wrote: post #125

Contextual irony aside, this is a big reason why the proposal of leveraging AI agents for workflow processing in lieu of using them to develop fixed software to perform the same functions has always struck me as weird, and of late come across as completely nonsensical. If you're paying someone else to run the inference for these models, or even to build these models, then you're ultimately relying on their specific p…

It’s the siren song of the lazy

It's the siren song of the myopically lazy. It's laziness today in exchange for harder work tomorrow, with the wager that tomorrow's harder work will be even lazier thanks to advances in technology.

Whereas I'd self-describe as "strategically lazy". It's building iterable code and repeatable processes today, so I can be lazy far into the future. It's engineering solutions today that are easier to support with lazier efforts tomorrow, regardless of whether things improve or get worse.

Building processes around agents predicated on a specific model is myopically lazy, because you'll be rebuilding and debugging that entire setup next year when your chosen agent is deprecated or retired. Those of us building documented code with agents today, will have an easier time debugging it in the future because the hard work is already done.

Incidentally, we'll also have gainful employment tomorrow by un-fucking agent-based workflows that didn't translate into software when tokens were cheap and subsidized by VCs for market capture purposes.

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#152

Post by [deleted] »

zmmmmm wrote: post #20
paxys wrote: post #16

This spiel is hilarious in the context of the product this company ( https://juno-labs.com/ ) is pushing – an always on, always listening AI device that inserts itself into your and your family’s private lives. “Oh but they only run on local hardware…” Okay, but that doesn't mean every aspect of our lives needs to be recorded and analyzed by an AI. Are you okay with private and intimate conversations and moments (inc…

The fundamental problem with a lot of this is that the legal system is absolute: if information exists, it is accessible. If the courts order it, nothing you can do can prevent the information being handed over, even if that means a raid of your physical premises. Unless you encrypt it in a manner resistant to any way you can be compelled to decrypt it, the only way to have privacy is for information not to exist in…

[deleted]

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#153

Post by drdaeman »

walt_grata wrote: post #141
estimator7292 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you think disabled people deserve to participate in society or not?

Yes but able bodied people shouldnt decide to use a wheelchair until their legs attrophy and become useless.

I understand the rationale, but don’t you see how this idea contradicts autonomy of decisions for able-minded people? Such good intentions tend to be a pavement on roads to bad places.

I’d rather suggest to inform about all the potential benefits and drawbacks, but leave decisions with the individual.

Especially given that it’s not something irreversibly permanent.

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#154

Post by lesuorac »

HWR_14 wrote: post #53
zmmmmm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem with a lot of this is that the legal system is absolute: if information exists, it is accessible. If the courts order it, nothing you can do can prevent the information being handed over, even if that means a raid of your physical premises. Unless you encrypt it in a manner resistant to any way you can be compelled to decrypt it, the only way to have privacy is for information not to exist in…

> Unless you encrypt it in a manner resistant to any way you can be compelled to decrypt it, In the US you it is not legal to be compelled to turn over a password. It's a violation of your fifth amendment rights. In the UK you can be jailed until you turn over the password.

Well, currently sure.

However, back when the constitution was amended the 5th amendment also applied to your own papers. (How is using something you wrote down not self-incrimination!?).

It only matters if one year in the future it is because all that back data becomes immediately allowed.

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#155

Post by walt_grata »

drdaeman wrote: post #153
walt_grata wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but able bodied people shouldnt decide to use a wheelchair until their legs attrophy and become useless.

I understand the rationale, but don’t you see how this idea contradicts autonomy of decisions for able-minded people? Such good intentions tend to be a pavement on roads to bad places. I’d rather suggest to inform about all the potential benefits and drawbacks, but leave decisions with the individual. Especially given that it’s not something irreversibly permanent.

I'd agree but we're closer to getting forced into the chair than making a decision that's right for us

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#156

Post by HWR_14 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #139
HWR_14 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you encrypt it in a manner resistant to any way you can be compelled to decrypt it, In the US you it is not legal to be compelled to turn over a password. It's a violation of your fifth amendment rights. In the UK you can be jailed until you turn over the password.

There are many jurisdictions in the US (not all!) where you can't be compelled to turn over a password in a criminal case that's specifically against yourself. But that's a narrow exception to the general principle that a court can order you to give them whatever information they'd like.

It's a federal constitutional protection to not be compelled to turn over your password. If you think a jurisdiction can compel you, I would like references.

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#157

Post by HWR_14 »

lesuorac wrote: post #154
HWR_14 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you encrypt it in a manner resistant to any way you can be compelled to decrypt it, In the US you it is not legal to be compelled to turn over a password. It's a violation of your fifth amendment rights. In the UK you can be jailed until you turn over the password.

Well, currently sure. However, back when the constitution was amended the 5th amendment also applied to your own papers. (How is using something you wrote down not self-incrimination!?). It only matters if one year in the future it is because all that back data becomes immediately allowed.

Papers were covered under the 4th amendment. It's always been the case that a warrant could let the government access your journal.

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#158

Post by ponector »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #72

> The always-on future is inevitable Not if you use open source. Not if you pay for services contractually will not mine your data. Not if you support start-ups that commit to privacy and the banning of ads. I said on another thread recently that we need to kill Android, that we need a new Mobile Linux that gives us total control over what our devices do, our software does. Not controlled by a corporation. Not with s…

>> that gives us total control over what our devices do

Like rooted Android phone, which is useless for regular folks because many critical apps doesn't work (like banking).

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#159

Post by encom »

schrodinger wrote: post #150
encom wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's why we have technology in the first place, to improve our lives, right? No, we have technology to show you more and more ads, sell you more and more useless crap, and push your opinions on Important Matters toward the state approved ones. Of course indoor plumbing, farming, metallurgy and printing were great hits, but technology has had a bit of a dry spell lately. If "An always-on AI that listens to your hou…

I don't think that ads _have_ to be evil. When I look at Google, I see a company that is fully funded by ads, but provides me a number of highly useful services that haven't really degraded over 20 years. Yes, the number of search results that are ads grew over the years, but by and large, Google search and Gmail are tools that serve rather benevolently. And if you're about to disagree with this ask yourself if you'r…

Google is almost cartoonishly evil these days. I think that's pretty much an established fact at this point.

I'm not using Gmail, and I don't understand why anyone would voluntarily. It was the worst email client I'd ever used, until I had to use Outlook at my new job.

The only Google products I use are YouTube, because that's where the content is. And Android, because IOS is garbage and Apple is only marginally less evil than Google.

Re: Every company building your AI assistant is now an ad company

#160

Post by lesuorac »

HWR_14 wrote: post #157
lesuorac wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, currently sure. However, back when the constitution was amended the 5th amendment also applied to your own papers. (How is using something you wrote down not self-incrimination!?). It only matters if one year in the future it is because all that back data becomes immediately allowed.

Papers were covered under the 4th amendment. It's always been the case that a warrant could let the government access your journal.

> See United States v. Hubbell. In Boyd v. United States,[60] the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "It is equivalent to a compulsory production of papers to make the nonproduction of them a confession of the allegations which it is pretended they will prove".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

This opinion hasn't lasted the test of time but historically your own documents cannot be used against use. Eventually the supreme court decided that since corporations weren't people that their documents could used against them and then later that it also people weren't protected by their own documents.

Post reply on HN