• jard@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    the point of fluffy blanket is to show you an ad for fluffy blankets, so it can be poorly trained and wildly inaccurate

    Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of listening for key ad words?

    “We’ll come up with dedicated hardware to detect if someone says “fluffy blankets,” but it’s really poor at that, so if someone is talking about cat food then our processing will detect “cat food” as “fluffy blanket,” and serve them an ad for fluffy blankets. Oh wait… that means there’s hardly any correlation between what a person says and what ads we serve them. Why don’t we just serve them randomized ads? Why bother with advanced technology to listen to them in the first place?”

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was about to write this but you took the words right out of my mouth, so I will just write “this ^”

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think what the person is saying is that if you aren’t listening for keywords to fire up your smart speaker, but are more instead just ‘bugging’ a home, you don’t need much in the way of hardware in the consumers home.

      Assuming you aren’t consuming massive amounts of data to transmit the audio and making a fuss on someone’s home network, this can be done relatively unnoticed, or the traffic can be hidden with other traffic. A sketchy device maker (or, more likely, an app developer) can bug someone’s home or device with sketchy EULA’s and murky device permissions. Then they send the audio to their own servers where they process it, extract keywords, and sell the metadata for ad targeting.

      Advertising companies already misrepresent the efficacy of the ads, while marketers have fully drank the kool-aid - leading to advertisers actually scamming marketers. (There was actually a better article on this, but I couldn’t find it.) I’m not sure accuracy of the speech interpretation would matter to them.
      I would not be surprised to learn that advertisers are doing legally questionable things to sell misrepresented advertising services. … but I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that an advertising company is misrepresenting their capabilities to commit a little (more) light fraud against marketers.

      sigh yay capitalism. We’re all fucked.

    • jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This along with much else that’s pointed out make the whole devices capturing audio to process keywords for ads all seem unlikely, but, one thing worth pointing out is that people do sell bad products that barely or even just plain old don’t do what they told their customers it would do. Someone could sell a listening to keywords to target ads solution to interested advertisers that just really sucks and is super shit at its job. From the device user’s standpoint it’d be a small comfort to know the device was listening to your conversations but also really sucked at it and often thought you were saying something totally different to what you said but I’d still be greatly dismayed that they were attempting, albeit poorly, to listen to my conversations.