1357
OpenAI banned a user who reverse engineered his Samsung TV (thelemmy.club)
submitted 5 days ago by to c/localllama@sh.itjust.works
374 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hacker reverse engineers his Samsung TV and finds on-device AI listening for your dog and baby, watching what you watch, and borrowing your soundbar's mic if the TV doesn't have one. Then OpenAI banned him for reverse-engineering it.

Source:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Ah. I see we're moving the goal posts now? Does this usually work for you? I, for one, really enjoy talking to cement. Have fun doing you, homes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

    The fuck I have. Explain yourself.

    I have consistently told you: this is legal because of copyright law, and you should want that law weakened so the parts you despise are not mandatory.

    To your late edit: I know these doomed companies would brag about sharing their scans of individual rare books because it would be cheaper than the effort to do it in secret, and better marketing than the endless screeching after they were inevitably found out. Tell me otherwise. Walk me through how any company would rather suffer this game of telephone where it sounds like they're burning down libraries, if they could instead announce how much good they've done for the world, never-you-mind their naked underlying motives.

    Recently someone scoffed - "It sounds like you’re comparing the most reasonable views of the pro-AI crowd to the most reactionary views of the anti-AI crowd." Threads like this are why. Threads like this are all there is. This is in the goddamn LocalLLaMA community, and I still have to deal with irrational insulting nonsense - for saying "libraries are for reeeadiiing."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    I know these doomed companies would brag about sharing their scans of individual rare books because it would be cheaper than the effort to do it in secret, and better marketing than the endless screeching after they were inevitably found out. Tell me otherwise.

    This was a fairly recent story. So far, I have heard nothing about them sharing the scans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    All AI defenders do is present strawman arguments. It all boils down to "I am lazy" in the ends.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago*

    Enough irony to build a battleship. Neither of you has any response besides posturing and insults.

    I didn't spend six hours trying to get a horse with wet hooves to drink, out of indolence. I weathered this constant essentialist sneering and conspiratorial emoji wank to explain - this is the legal path. This is what our absurd copyright situation allows and requires. This is what a lot of y'all asked for, whether or not you listened to us saying so.

    I'm not the one who shuffled cards for a fallacy to lie about and then grumped my way out of that conversation. I am, even now, suffering fools to better their understanding of this topic. You are aggressively disinterested. What the fuck are you still doing here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent