The presentation used the example, “Imagine ChatGPT, but it already knows everything about your life.”
I’m impressed someone thought of that, wrote a presentation, rehearsed it, then presented it and at no point thought that it sounds creepy and invasive.
I really don’t get users.
Google already has the capacity to be doing this level of analysis on your data that you gave them to host for their own private internal purposes.
But we should reject the opportunity to have that aggregate picture of our data turned back over to ourselves to make the most of what’s already the case?
This really reminds me of the saying “nothing about the situation has changed, only your information about the situation has changed.”
They’re marketing this as a personal salesbot to advertisers now. That’s what changed.
Even if google has your data, up till now there was not much brain muscle to properly analyze it in a realistic and detailed collection of intelligent knowledge. Just some cheap tricks like daily patterns.
An ai could potentially use the same data to learn things about you that you yourself do not. Its not our information that has changed but googles ability to harvest addition information from the data they already have.
I don’t use google service myself but this should alarm people that do. The information they have provided is much more powerful then what was anticipated years ago.
suggests either these people are so detached from reality, or they are appealing this to very specific sets of people under the guise of a general appeal
not even family member know everything about life
is private
Ha ha, no.
Google has announced the closure of Project Ellmann, ending minutes of speculations
You’re just being cute, right?
Project Ad-mann.
Jokes on us tho. Google is going ahead with this, it’s just never going to made available for public use. It’s only to use for figuring out exactly what we’ll buy.
Why have a bot just figure out what consumers want when it you can also have it do direct marketing?
This announcement wasn’t for consumers, but advertisers.
Google can’t even keep a podcast service going. I certainly wouldn’t trust them with a little buddy that I care about.
Mmmmm, how intimate? Will it know…everything? blushes
Nope.
The right to NONassociation should always outrank the right to association.
Molesters may claim the right to closely-associate, but the right-to-be-not-molested should outrank their association-right.
Nonassociation needs to be a fundamental right.
In multiple contexts.
Abusees who want no-contact to have teeth,
molester-survivors,
etc.
Including identity-molestation/theft, and other abuses of one’s personal information.
_ /\ _
paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaass
I propose that we do not.
No thanks.
Yeah, I’d rather not, piss off.
A chatbot that needs to mind its own damn business, I say.
Bring it on, I’ll make it hate me
