My Alexa and Facebook are spookily linked.
Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
91–100 of 125 posts
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of these companies are not lacking in the amount of data the can collect about you. I find it hard to believe that listening in on random conversations, collecting the audio stream, processing it, data mining it, accounting for substantial noise - is worth the effort for any of these companies. Maybe for a smaller startup. When you're already a $1T company - this just doesn't seem like a good or valuable data so…
> When you're already a $1T company On the other hand, maybe when you're that big you've already covered the low-hanging fruits (and so did your competitors) and now need even more?
This is a false assumption.
It's so much easier to grow Amazon .1% than to discover a new $100M business.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of these companies are not lacking in the amount of data the can collect about you. I find it hard to believe that listening in on random conversations, collecting the audio stream, processing it, data mining it, accounting for substantial noise - is worth the effort for any of these companies. Maybe for a smaller startup. When you're already a $1T company - this just doesn't seem like a good or valuable data so…
They only need to collect it and do voice recognition: the ad buyers are more than happy to buy the text and do the rest of the data mining. “Sell my product to anyone that mentions fridge” Yanno?
That feels like the kind of thing that sounds good on the surface, but breaks down when you actually try to size it. The incremental value of that data vs search data seems nearly 0 - I would guess almost everyone who has searched for a fridge has said some variation of "fridge" out loud, and there would be so much additional noise from people who say it but aren't in any way intending to buy a new fridge.
But don't get me wrong, it is totally plausible that some eng team somewhere would still build it because it's a shiny new tech, it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that has any real world value.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have mentioned this a number of times here on HN, but each time I'm told by other users that it just appears that way because the topic is fresh in my mind... I don't think that's the case.
This is called observational bias. Imo the truth is much scarier: advertises know us better than we known ourselves. There's also the idea that we are so alike, advertises can generalize to great success.
I think the truth is actually that we are MUCH less unique than we would like to believe, and that some combination of age + gender + location probably predicts like 80% of our interests.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#95From what is worth, I'm a data scientist who has worked on ads in the past. I've always been under the impression that massive scale audio processing for ad targetting was way too expensive when compared to the signal we can extract from the audio data and as compared to the final ad conversion. I mean, at least from the prices of having an instance processing streams/bacthes of audio data just to sort out brands/pro…
This paper is studying how requests to the smart speakers are used. Smart speakers translate requests into text, and I'm assuming the ads are just keyed off the resulting requests just like they would be if you put them into the search system manually.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#96It's baffling that so many people insist this is not happening, or that it's too computationally expensive.
On several occasions I've seen ads appear based upon things being discussed, but never searched. Always with the realization I was near a smart device with a microphone (or an app with permissions)
I think in hindsight this will be similar to the realization that systems like XKeyscore and PRISM were not only technically possible but already deployed.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think what it's actually showing (per Section 6.1) is that Amazon is using wishy-washy language to give the impression that they are not using voice recordings to build ad profiles on users[1]. They instead claim that it's for "personalized experiences" and "building inclusiveness". This adorable little infographic on "the journey of a voice request" conveniently leaves out that it gets used for advertisement[2]. T…
> They have also made public statements that outright state that voice data doesn't get used for ad-targeting[3] “not use customers’ voice recordings for targeted advertising.” I guess it depends on how one reads that quote. A trusting sort could read that to mean, we don't use anything we learn from voice recordings for targeted advertising. A skeptic might read that quote and determine: Well we generate metadata fr…
Yes exactly, the text is arguably data derived from voice recordings. So they can say that they don't use the voice recordings for ads, while omitting that they do use the derived text that was recognized for ads. It's unclear language but I wouldn't be surprised if this was the correct interpretation.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#98It's baffling that so many people insist this is not happening, or that it's too computationally expensive. On several occasions I've seen ads appear based upon things being discussed, but never searched. Always with the realization I was near a smart device with a microphone (or an app with permissions) I think in hindsight this will be similar to the realization that systems like XKeyscore and PRISM were not only t…
> It's baffling that so many people insist this is not happening, or that it's too computationally expensive.
If i am not mistaken - this paper seems to look at explicit "Smart Speaker interactions" - not passive background listening which is what I believe you are alluding to.
Not arguing that I am saying that latter does/doesn't happen - but just that this paper is not proof of it. And there is a big difference.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of the paper gives you the impression they imply voice assistants are listening to everything? I don’t get that. The discussion in the paper is nuanced on that point and does not make that claim as far as I read it. Section 2.2 (page 2): > The content of users’ speech can reveal sensitive information (e.g., private conversations) and the voice signals can be processed to infer potentially sensitive informat…
> What part of the paper gives you the impression they imply voice assistants are listening to everything? For me, it's this: "Your Echos are Heard" So, the opening salvo. That's what gives me the impression they imply voice assistances are listening to everything. I don't refer to voice commands or normal interaction as "echos" so the user of the word "echos" here implies something nefarious. Sure, it's the name of…
No post body was provided.
Re: Statistical Analysis shows Echos process voice to serve ads
#100It's baffling that so many people insist this is not happening, or that it's too computationally expensive. On several occasions I've seen ads appear based upon things being discussed, but never searched. Always with the realization I was near a smart device with a microphone (or an app with permissions) I think in hindsight this will be similar to the realization that systems like XKeyscore and PRISM were not only t…
I think this could be implemented without listening: I am physically meeting with my friend X who is researching online for his new acquisition (or he already got it). The more obsessed he is with that, the bigger the chances he'll tell me how awesome such a thing is.
So algorithms can percolate his interests to me after we meet and some time it would happen that we talked about it too.