Swarms of RE-hopefuls are now using tools they don't understand to work on projects they don't understand. Anyone doing RE knows step 1 is read public documentation, FCC filing, patent applications, etc. That step would tell you what the device does out of the box, no RE required to find everything the OP has actually uncovered.
Instead they busted out Claude and have been gaslit by their own AI into thinking they've discovered something. They just discovered features that Samsung has been pitching for years.
I can almost see the "they're using it for advertising" or "they're selling information about whether you have a dog or a baby, of course!", but notifying every time they make noise?
There's obviously more to this story than these sensational knee-jerk reactions assume. They're just so non-curious for a supposed 'investigation'.
None of the assertions you made are backed by this 'research' which as far as I can see only shows that the TV is capable of detecting dog barks and baby cries.
You're just presuming that because the TV is capable of sensing these things (which Samsung advertises - links at end) this data is being collected and sent to Samsung - and then sold on.
So, some questions:
Is information about every time your baby cries or dog barks even valuable enough that this is plausible?
Is there any evidence that this is actually being sent over a network - for purposes other than the features they advertise?
Is there evidence that these are even being monitored if the dog bark or baby cry feature is not turned on?
Shouldn't the burden of showing things like this be on the people making the sensational accusations?
I could come up with more, but I think that these are enough. I'd love (well, hate, because I don't want it to be true) to see some actual proof of any of this.
https://www.samsung.com/us/smartthings/experience-smartthing... https://www.samsung.com/ie/smartthings/care-for-your-pet/
And on flock cameras they still do.
It's like this, once you have the data they will come for it.
(Joking or /sarcasm.)
For example, it would be tiresome to have someone insist that s0ss is clearly an illegal hacker with multiple felonies to his name solely because he chats with YCombinator's secret anonymous hacking collective. And yet this post right here makes it very clear you are one of us! ;-)
While caution is definitely warranted after LG, I am definitely getting the impression that people are far too quick to jump to conclusions because an A.I. service told them something without them factually checking it first
In my opinion, Claude "gaslighting" is a signal the other way - If Claude thinks they've discovered something, that means the llm-compression of most digitalized human knowledge still finds SmartThing a disturbing piece of tech that user do not want.
So first we have to the examine the gate being kept, and who's the keeper. If it's "being allowed to vote" and the gate is being kept by "men", sure, tear down that wall. In this case however, the gate being kept is not reading the documentation and being mind blown for something that's documented. Not like, hidden away somewhere, but plainly documented. I'm torn though, because xkcd 1053 also applies. Unfortunately, tech is one of those areas where you can only cry wolf so many times before people just totally ignore you.
I mean, that’s just a statement of fact from the grandparent, no? I don’t see it as gatekeeping; are you focusing on some other part of the comment?
I think someone who’s aware of how to do Reverse Engineering being tired of those who’re making mistakes but advertising the output of those mistakes as legitimate discovery is pretty normal. I remember when I was learning FreeBSD that I’d show up in the mailing lists thinking I’d found bugs, but really I hadn’t read the docs well enough, and people were direct with me that I needed to do better if I threw the word “bug” around. It’s just normal peer feedback.
I would respectfully submit that trying to treat Anthropic’s models’ nonsense alarmism like it is legitimate output is closer to gaslighting. At best, the output shows that the majority of people have an alarmed tone.
I look at the original comment and it doesn't say anything about gullibility. It expresses frustration that there's an influx of people interested in the field of Reverse Engineering but aren't digging deeper to where the answers are. I read the comment as being more similar to the complaints of the Eternal September, when an existing culture got permanently swamped by people who wanted to interact with the tools of the culture but didn't realise there was a process to learn first.
For myself, I'm glad there's an influx of people interested in technology and being able to grasp at the tools that can deliver outcomes. I don't love seeing people appearing that want to tell me that deeper understanding is dead, not because it does me any particular daily harm but because I think there's still a lot of value in understanding the details of a topic which summaries tend to gloss over. I've been feeling this for a long time, though, it's not related to LLMs but to a culture of knowledge more fixated on soundbites than on getting at the truth of things.
In this case, I see the original commenter reflecting my own concerns, but that's so often the way: we see things as we are, not as they are, which may be colouring my read.
Reasonable minds can disagree, of course, and I respect that we may just be reading the comment quite differently.
At a dead minimum, I'd expect something like "addressing the concerns the experts are raising" instead of trying to do a character assassination.
I generally read "character assassinations" as suggesting that someone has no real technical arguments available - conversely, the experts here are citing specific facts and evidence.