Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
I don't know if I'm understanding this argument right, but the idea that integrating locally run AI is inherently privacy destroying in the same way as live service AI doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
think of apple's on-device image scanner ai that flagged people as perverts after they had taken photos of sand dunes.
building and centralizing pii is indeed a privacy point of failure. what's not to understand?
The use of local AI does not imply doing that, especially not the centralizing part. Even if some software does collect and store info locally (not inherent to the technology and anything with autosave already qualifies here), that is not close to as bad privacywise as filtering everything through a remote server, especially if there is some guarantee they won't just randomly start exfiltrating it, like being open source.
emphasis mine from the text you quoted…
I don't see how the possibility it's connected to some software system for profile building, is a reason to not care whether a language model is local only. The way things are worded here make it sound like this is just an intrinsic part of how LLMs work, but it just isn't. The model still just does text prediction, any "memory" features are bolted on.
Because these are often sold with profile building features, for example, recall. Recall is sold as "local only" with profile building features. So it continues to be centralized pii that is a point of failure. As the quote says, as i said.
Even with Recall, a hypothetical non-local equivalent would be significantly worse. Whether Microsoft actually has your data or not obviously matters. Most conceivable software that uses local AI wouldn't need any kind of profile building anyway, for instance that Firefox translation feature.
The thing that's frustrating to me here is the lack of acknowledgement that the main privacy problem with AI services is sending all queries to some company's server where they can do whatever they want with them.
why do you care that someone didnt say it was worse enough? "x is a problem, if y is true then z is a problem" -> "why didnt you talk about x"
silly.
What's basically being said is, making an AI powered software local-only doesn't make a difference and doesn't matter. But that's not true, and the arguments for that don't seem coherent.
the point is that making it local-only is not significantly better. it does not solve a major problem.
So you don't think collection of user data is a meaningful privacy problem here? How does that work?
it is, and that is still happening.
Software that is designed not to send your data over the internet doesn't collect your data. That's what local-only means. If it does send your data over the internet, then it isn't local-only. How is it still happening?
it does. it locally aggregates, collects data about what you do on your computer across the days and weeks.
But the company hasn't collected it, because it doesn't have it. Your computer has it. So long as it stays on your computer, it cannot harm your privacy. That's why there is such a big difference here; an actual massive loss of privacy that is guaranteed to be combined with everyone else's data and used against you, vs a potential risk of loss of privacy from someone gaining unauthorized access to your computer.
Microsoft Recall