If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.

What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.

AI copied everyone else’s work and now it wants to cry about copying. Sucks to suck.

He can’t design himself out of a paper bag. He also can’t define either of those two words, so your point still stands.

That’s a trial and error approach for something that could easily be a simple setting.

It also doesn’t work if you use an alternative front end or aren’t signed in.

Additionally it also depends entirely on the content you view and your viewing enough of it to train the algorithm, which means new accounts or little used accounts have no recourse.

My thought process is this. Your neighbor likely has neither the inclination or the technical knowledge to use disturbances in the wifi signals from their own wifi to do this. Additionally they likely don’t have access to every neighbors wifi (which if you had it would likely allow you to fine tune this significantly).

So basically, every neighbor you have or at least the majority of them are getting together to do this?

The premise is that a person can set up a wifi network in a place adjacent to [target], monitor that network, map the area they want to surveil (while it’s empty would be better) and then use disturbances in that area to track [target] within the space.

What you’d still need is time to measure the disturbances and gather a profile on the individual you were tracking in order to remove false positives (people of the same height and weight or body type etc).

It actually is at least location specific. Because you need penetration of the Wi-Fi signal into the space in order to collect the data necessary. I live in a place that was built on a steel frame with sheet rock. I can’t even get signal from my own wifi standing on my door step. I also don’t pick up the wifi of my neighbors, and can’t get cell signal in the house. So they’d have to break into my home and place monitors to pick up my own wifi in order to do this. At that point it’d be much easier to plant a bug.

Because it’s location specific and dependent on the materials of the construction of the place being penetrable enough to collect said frequencies (and because wifi is often high frequency and the higher the frequency the less penetrative power it has), it’s much more likely that this kind of surveillance method would likely be used by a 3-letter agency, and at that point they’d drop a wifi pineapple on the roof, assuming they needed to do that at all. Or track you through public wifi.

There’s lots of news stories about new and old ways of surveillance and some of those are just easier, less intrusive, less expensive, and possibly more effective.

Some plants have leaves so sensitive you can measure their movements to reconstruct conversations that happened in their vicinity.

I think a few years ago there was a story about listening in on a conversation by during a laser at a window.

You could potentially do the same thing with sonar.

I have questions about why your neighbors would do that. The usefulness of it for your everyday civilian isn’t worth the work, and even if it was it relies on the cooperation of more than one person, and the right location factors to do it.

I also have questions about what happens when there are no users interacting with the wifi.

“This technology turns every router into a potential means for surveillance,” warns Julian Todt from KASTEL. “If you regularly pass by a café that operates a WiFi network, you could be identified there without noticing it and be recognized later – for example by public authorities or companies.”

It is sufficient for Wi-Fi devices in their vicinity to communicate with each other. This creates an image - comparable to a camera image, but based on radio waves.

It exploits the legitimate users who are connected to the Wi-Fi. They regularly send feedback signals, also known as beamforming feedback information (BFI), to the router in the network - unencrypted and readable for third parties. This creates images from different angles that can be used to identify people. This only takes a few seconds once the machine learning model behind it has been trained.

This paragraph in particular suggests that you still need training data. That seems like it would require a larger window of data collection and training.

In the home there must be stationary or rarely moved devices (usually one to three) connected to this router via Wi-Fi — for example, a printer, a smart speaker and/or a smart TV. Sometimes Wi-Fi extenders and mesh Wi-Fi devices can perform the role of a “sensor”.

Motion detection will occur only in the oval zone between the router and the “sensor”, and post-setup testing is required.

https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/wifi-sensing-motion-detection-howto/53851/

https://www.informatik.kit.edu/english/11147_14950.php

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260522023127.htm

No. You and your neighbors couldn’t unless they had enough access to train up on and analyze how the wifi signals were being disrupted by the people in question. At best you and your neighbors could know when it detected that humans were present and that’s about it.

Unless your neighbors have active access to your home and can collect other data about your walking and moving patterns to fine tune a model.

I’m so tired of this clickbait story. Can we not spread this nonsense.

ROFL. The people most likely to dislike AI and actively work against it love tech. This is the most backward thing you can say. These are the people who build jelly fin servers and make their own VPN’s and (used to) build gaming rigs. These are the same people who heard that the US wanted to ban routers and were like “we’ll make our own with blackjack and hookers”.

I don’t know if I’d go that far but I certainly would report the fraudulent transaction and their correspondence admitting to it to their bank and the proper authorities in their country if I could find a way. And that singular encounter would make me refuse to ship to that entire country anymore.

I use twitch. It doesn’t take much at all to get a ban of any kind. I’ve seen twitch streamers get banned mid stream. I think this stream in particular is likely to attract a lot of people who disagree with his political leanings and want to troll. It’ll be heavily modded and there are likely to be topics that will not be discussed because they’re problematic enough that a troll could use twitch’s own guidelines against the stream.

First question. Why do you think these students are booing?

Second question. You mention China. How much unemployment is there in China and, what is the main cause for the rate of unemployment?

The problem with your argument is that the companies that people rely on are going to have to deal with a market where AI is taking up a lot of resources they rely on, which will cause problems for their customers outside of the US.

European and African and Asian companies don’t need chips? They don’t need Harddrives? They don’t need computer components? How are car manufacturers going to build and sell new cars or fix older cars without chips? How do engineers trained to use CAD and modeling software do that without computers? (Please note that I’m not talking about some 60 year old engineer who will do it with a draft board and a pencil and a slide rule, I’m talking about new engineers who learned these electronic tools expecting to have them always available and who now are facing an uncertain future for the tech their business relies on).

The point is, there are far reaching consequences for AI in tech that effect the entire world.

This is an oversimplified version of events.

The majority of voters don’t like the current regime and are fighting it in through the avenues they are aware of.

But here’s the main problem.

The propaganda isn’t how we got here. The fact is, the conservative party in this country has been desperately chipping away at public power for decades. They enacted policy and legislation over a period of years (over 100 years if we’re gonna be honest about this), in order to defang the public. The main problem with that is that propaganda only works when you can control the discourse and that’s the reason the big push is happening now. This is their last ditch attempt to get things they want done and cash out. They do not plan to be here for the aftermath.

The average MAGA voter is indoctrinated with the propaganda but that’s not really why Trump won. He made promises that appealed to their basest/hateful natures and those are the majority of the promises he kept. He won because of complacency on the part of people who opposed him (including voters and voter eligible people who opposed him), and the hatred of the people who supported him. Some of that hatred comes from the propaganda. But some of it just comes from the fact that the problem is a systemic part of our country as an institution and that’s the major thing you leave out. Along with the complacency and the hatred, he also won because desperate people trying to cash in and cash out backed him. There’s a greed component you also left out.

The crazy thing is that greed component also exists in the voters.

Pretending that it’s simply a matter of using propaganda to get people to vote against their own self interest is only part of the picture.

They were voting for things they view as part of their self interest.

But twitch is owned by Amazon and frankly they can and do moderate Twitch streams.

This is not supposed to be a discouragement of politicians connecting with the public via any means necessary.

I just want to point out the flawed logic of saying news media is owned by billionaires so it can’t be trusted, but twitch, also owned by a billionaire can somehow be trusted.

All of that falls apart in more ways than one for a lot of people once they can’t maintain a quality of life at all. I’m not saying they aren’t susceptible to propaganda. I’m saying that propaganda often falls apart when you have to worry about where your next meal is coming from.

Young people are using AI because they want the shortcuts to the goal society said they need to achieve.

Pretty much all of the stuff you talk about is stuff a smaller subset of the population fall for. You went through and described a bunch of MAGA voting as if the vast majority of higher education graduates fall into this category.

In point of fact it’s been proven repeatedly that more often than not the reason Conservatives have been trying desperately to fight against higher education and education in general is because they get pushback from educated people more often, even after feeding them a steady diet of religion, conservative propaganda, and racism.

This is completely ignoring the majority of people to make your point.

It also ignores the last 70 years of politics and economics which explain how we got here. There’s more too it than “we convince them to vote against their own best interest”.

You don’t get to convince a bunch of companies to eliminate job paths by getting rid of entry level positions (even before AI), sell the idea that the AI is basically going to make their degrees useless, and then try to sell them on AI after the fact.

I paid… $74.99 for a lifetime plex sub in 2014. Is this the same service?

They’ll imprison us and use us as cheap labor. At least in the US. Unless they kill us.

The rich. Corps. That’s who they are selling services to these days. Especially the AI stuff. You can’t afford AI. I can’t afford it. But the corp you work for can. The no longer care about us plebs.

Only business that would require an ID/Age Verification check, but yeah. Except they don’t want to hold actual websites liable. They want to hold ISP’s liable.

There’s literally no way to know if the people using the VPN’s are located in Utah. So this law would be unenforceable against actual websites.

It might possibly be enforceable against ISP’s but the problem is, once you fire up a VPN your ISP can only see your entry point and maybe that there is a volume of traffic going to and from your device. They can’t see what websites you visit (provided your VPN is properly configured).

I also don’t understand how this bill could effectively lay any blame against the websites for knowing you use a VPN because they also can’t see any of that information. They know that you visited and from a specific IP “located” in “place” and they can either assume that the use of a VPN means you’re in Utah (very unlikely), or they can assume you’re not (more likely given the population that lives outside Utah).

I think what it does (my take from the outside looking in) is rob people of context. Sometimes that context is extremely important and without it even the best answers can cause flaws and failures.

The one good thing about going to a website and reading an article is that you get context that helps you understand the concept not just the answer you were looking for.

The context is how we learn. It’s how we build on basic understanding. It’s also how we vet information for factualness.

I believe this is why people see a decline in their skillset when they use AI LLM’S in place of their own skills. Every time you use a skill you refine it. Don’t use it and in a lot of cases you will lose it.