It's their in-house cellular modem for 2G/3G/4G/5G.
No details on satellite comms, but the predecessor C1X also handles satellite communication and competitor Qualcomm also does satellite comms on the same silicon, so I'd say yes.
It's quite incredible to consider that all these concerns already existed years ago,
but now that a handful of companies working in AI managed to enslave the entire financial system over the past year, their continued work is protected from larger governance for concerns it could tank the stock-market, affect personal investments, pensions or cause disadvantages in an arms-race with other countries.
IF there is an inherent danger (which I believe is the case at least on economic levels, work displacement, poverty,...), it is now basically ensured that nothing will be done to reign those companies in, until maybe two AI's engage in an open war with civilian casualties...
phrases along the lines of "I don't want you to take harm while trying to accuse us" is quite an "impressive feat".
Maybe shows how fast these companies have grown without maturing. I can imagine old-world Intel and Microsoft acting in that way, but they were mature enough to not write it down like this.
However, Intel and Microsoft have been grilled in court for those practices and faced harsh consequences. I have yet to see this actually happening to any of these new AI-companies...
Agree, I think the practice is also very clear from the overall strategy of AI-companies and their ToS:
Scale with subsidized pricing as fast as possible to gain more user-data for training --> Own the better model --> scale pricing.
Scanning social media (e.g. Twitter, Reddit) posts only give a glimpse into the thought-process, chat logs on-scale give you the actual process in machine-readable format.
There's a reason why Google considers the Emails of Spirit Airlines to be worth millions of dollars [0], they give insights into a process, not just into the results...
> - Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training.
The question, for AI customers, is when they build products using services of AI-companies, would AI-companies engage in theft of customer data for use in training?
If you still had that question, you can answer it now.
But honestly... "Will the company that was entirely built over illegally acquiring data use some data that is legal to use and is right on their front, or will they not do everything they reserve the right to do?" is a really bad question for one to even ask.
The fantastic grey area that was engineered over the past decade is "profiling", so my guess is the answer will be "we didn't use your customer data for training, but we cannot rule out that it has been used to create profiles of your customers to train our model"
What LG (and Samsung and all the other electronics companies) are doing is profiling the user to sell targeted advertising. This is technically not personal information, and that's a grey area for those companies when communicating to the public.
People here generally don't like to hear that, but Apple is doing the very same. There's even a study-paper on how they do this without collecting personal information [0]
So when a company yells out how it's not collecting your "personal information", the statement actually doesn't cover what has been discovered here from all I can decipher from this "research"
The terms of service in Europe [0] are actually very different to those in US [1], I wouldn't be surprised if the behavior within the EU is within EU GDPR regulation.
GDPR "only" covers your personal information (and personal identifiable information) anyway, it doesn't cover data used to profile you (e.g. the time of day the TV and the hours a TV is switched on is technically not personal information)
Either way, case in point: Check this hilarious statement in the US ToS:
"6. I understand and agree that Voice Information may, for the purposes set out above, be transferred to and processed in other countries (including Korea), some of which may not offer the same level of data protection."
Also, this one in the US ToS:
"9. I understand that this Smart Media Product is a household device. If this Smart Media Product will be used by more than one person, I represent that, in addition to agreeing to this Agreement, that I have obtained consent from all other members of my household whose information may be collected through this Smart Media Product and am providing consent on their behalf."
vs. Europe ToS:
"I understand and agree that Voice Information is generally handled by LGE in such a way that members of your household are not identified or identifiable from that information. Please be aware that this means that if several members of your household use Smart Media Product services we may not be able to distinguish you and your personal information from members of your household and those members may be able to see information (including some personal information) you have generated through use of Smart Media Product Services."
> How is this not a gigantic fine from the EU for some kind of GDPR reason
The underlying "research" is unfortunately not that clean, but I'd say for two reasons:
1. Because looking at the LG ToS alone, it seems that the devices do MUCH more data-collecting outside Europe
2. GDPR is covering your personal information (WHO you are) and personal identifiable information (data that can be used to infer WHO you are). In a nutshell: If a device (a TV, a phone, a car, a Smart Home device, whatever) collects information to PROFILE you, without collecting data about WHO you are, they are not violating your privacy. The company needs to be VERY careful about not accidentally collecting identifiable information, but as long as this doesn't happen, it's within GDPR.
That said, a proper technical write-up of the issues found, with an investigation by a professional journalist would be very helpful to get things going, put proper pressure where it needs to be and dismantle this Ad network business-model of all those TV-manufacturers (Samsung Ads, LG Ads, TCL Ads, Hisense Ads,...)
GDPR claims to apply globally, in the same way Windows believes it owns the whole computer, but I'm actually running it in a VM. The actual boundary of GDPR is the intersection of where it says it applies (everyone in Europe and European residents everywhere), where it can be enforced (in Europe, mostly, against European business entities), and what judges will actually rule on (probably not Europeans overseas who misrepresent themselves as locals)
Still no solution if the image posted online is not that reference image or that reference image is actually a photo of an AI picture.
reply