Right, that hash is an entrypkint to match to a screenshot elsewhere. A perceptu hash, pseodo anonymity. A lawyers-coders lie. A polices parallel construction. LG still knows what you watch.
One aspect, perhaps worthy of some scrutiny, is how the database of hashes is produced. One presumes there's an assortment of cable boxes and/or satellite dishes feeding hundreds of channels into an ingestion mechanism that stores the fingerprints into a database. There are a lot of edge cases that are technically challenging, especially when considering the 210 or so local markets in the US. It'd be interesting to learn how that is done and whether any digital locks are circumvented in the process.
You don’t have to be perfect, just best effort. Sticking to the top dozen channels, commercials, plus the rolling list of top ten streaming movies/tv shows, probably lets you get 70%+ hit rate.
There will always be unidentifiable content (home movies, one of a trillion YouTube videos, video games, etc).
You jest, but ssh/git has a similar problem. The client tries every key it can if the config is naive enough. So, the server knows which cluster of public keys identify the same person. Github is said to do this kind of fingerprinting.
Actually keeping screenshots would be expensive. They of course don't care what the content is. You care what the PGP content is.
They care about what you're watching, so in the dystopian future, they can tell a government that your bin of hashes are 90% banned content and you should be denaturalized because you're clearly a communist cross-dressing monkey from mars.
It's bizarre you think it's equal to knowing a PGP key. It's not, the point is the database of hashes are good enough to tell them things about you. They could do a lot of different malicious things with that knowledge, primarily because it's not anonymous information. They likely have GPS, so they know where you are at the same time, even not having GPS, they include wifi, and some have cellular chips.
If you think what we're talking about equates to PGP, you are seriously confused about how privacy works.
Makes sense, in a dystopian future the dystopian government would issue 2026 era TVs to everyone but strangely ban all 2026 monitors (which aren't smart), closing the gap where the dystopian government is unable to stop people from rooting their amazon fire tv sticks (somehow).
My point is, the "slippery slope to dystopia" is full of rocks and I'd like to force you to mentally crahs into a few before anyone accepts your premise, show us you're worthy.
"ACR uses audio fingerprinting technology using the TV’s internal audio processor (not a speaker) to identify content and does not collect screenshots, screen recordings, video recordings, voice recordings, or other audio recordings from the TV. Where ACR is available and enabled, ACR-related information may be used for audience segmentation and viewing or audience trend analysis. Interest-based advertising and cross-device advertising require separate user consent through the applicable advertising-related agreements."
... and later ...
"ACR uses audio fingerprinting technology to identify content. Rather than collecting screenshots, screen recordings, or visual content from the TV screen, ACR extracts a digital fingerprint of the TV content being viewed using the TV’s internal audio processor (not a speaker). ACR does not collect or store voice recordings, other audio recordings, screenshots, screen images, or video recordings from the TV."
Because they are treated very different. They are part of the unique political party that runs the company, like in China. Democracy exists only outside the company, inside the company it's the same political system as in China. What that means is that loyalty is the only thing that matters for those roles. Productivity not at all.
How bout we think about consciousness as a VM; that VM can load one, many, several types of context processing. The environment (nurture) is what trains/expands the different ones and potentially unplug the other ones, etc.
One of those types of consciousness processing is indistinguishable from what an LLM does.
Everyone knows someone who seems to just call and respond based on whatever popular media of their choice of culture is on about.
I worked in the industry. It would have been really hard for China not to do better. Like really hard. They allocated 2 years, 150 people for a device that already existed but needed to be adapted to a different customer. It took 2.5 years. No improvements added. Every single manager in those companies is very political, no skills, technical or otherwise.
So if chinese hired 20 competent people, gave them training on the industry's specific tools, they are already ahead.
>I worked in the industry. It would have been really hard for China not to do better.
Same. Major German car company I used to work for was so incompetent, slow and inefficient that it was inevitable they'd get shown off by Chinese cars, since Tesla did it before so it was a matter of time.
Sorry, I might be too young to remember those times.
Can you tell me more, please? I'm genuinely curious.
Because from the sound of that, it feels that it would patch the `123456` problem, but opens up a new vulnerability - the password is known / being sent through / printed, so it can be leaked from that source.
Automated regular password updates were often stopped because it leads to people writing them down, usually on a sticky note on the bezel of their monitor. Or, if it's just an update requirement then you get PasswordOct26, etc.
It was just that. And email with the new password. Hard to remember at first but then, somehow, I could type it from memory. Not sure how they got rid of the emails after they sent them but there are ways. It can be leaked from the source, true, but people with better technical skills were handling that source. So I guess overall it was better. The big insight might be that you can't evaluate the security of a system only from the technical aspect. You have to take into consideration also the human aspect. And that's a very weak point. Even Communism failed because they didn't take into consideration the human aspect (people don't want to work more if they get what everybody else gets anyway).
And if you do provide feedback, they also collect the session. So it's a way for them to collect prompts, answers and overall grade for how good the answers are.
I did. At some point Claude figured out I didn't even check the code and it "minified" the code. Now only Claude can change it. It's a small side project I wanted to do for a long time and now it's Done.
reply