Comment by ProfessorLayton

Has he tried these? https://www.fortell.com/

Or are they the directional ones you were referring to?

I've definitely had situations where I zoned out for a few seconds during a meeting or seminar, and want to see what was just spoken. That seems like a much stronger use case where you wouldn't want to interrupt the whole room to ask what was just spoken.

Is it super weird and creepy if you I tell you I remember the last 15 seconds of what you said?

Man I love live translation. I was traveling in the Middle East and went to see a movie and… it worked. My Spanish is mid, my Italian is barely there, my Arabic is near zero.

It’s hard for me to imagine not wanting language barriers to disappear.

The demo of the woman at the train station listening to a concert promoter in Spanish, taking a flyer, saying “thank you” in English and walking away came off as quite geocentric.

Fair enough. But people here are expressing disdain at this new feature, which is not that.

My hope is it’s off by default and most people choose to keep it that way.

This featuring is undoubtedly to compete with, and crush, all of those stand-alone AI wearables that do the same thing. All those products failed, because people either didn’t find it that useful, or the creep factor was too high.

I could see some scenarios where it might be useful. Being at a conference, for example, and having a summary of everything I heard in the various presentations. But at the same time, it feels like the people being recorded should have knowledge of, and give consent to, the recording.

It's also a violation of law in some places.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632/

It's a 15 second loop of audio history. If you didn't record the bit a minute ago, it's gone.

A short buffer is common with wake word audio processing.

And a crime in plenty of states. It shouldn't be, but it is.

While I still do trust that on-device audio is safe, you can rewind and record it on another device.

The regulatory workaround is an "un-mutable" audio notification of some sort. This might be a very notable sound in the near future. I am curious what the chosen waveform might be:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/148354#:~:text=Audible,activ...

>Outside of phone calls, you are generally allowed to record anything you can legally hear

I am not a lawyer but I do not believe that is true in any state except Nevada. Two-party consent almost always includes in person conversations. California Code, Penal Code 632:

>A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-632/

As far as I can tell in 2 party states, it depends on the expectation of privacy, and even in public, your intent. In any case, here is their threading of the needle:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/148354#:~:text=app%2E-,How,s...

It keeps information on what they said?

I think if someone followed me and my friend around and kept a transcript and summary of every conversation between and around us in a little notebook, I would have a basis to say my privacy was being violated, right?

So—speaking to the general “you” here—not you, @jiggawatts, personally (I’m sure we’re both lovely, and I chose to respond here only because you seem to capture the prevailing opinion simply, thoughtfully, and reasonably)—

I respect that you believe that. I do not. It touches up against my basic relationship to reality and existence. To me, there’s a difference between a person and a machine. And between a meeting-of-the-minds-in-the-moment and an archival record.

To me, even the act of processing me through something-other-than-your-human-mind feels violative—essentializing and reductive. For me it’s wrapped up in ideas about attachment, and illusions of permanence, and attention and presence and the extra ineffable elements of human contact that unfold at levels other than the words and an exchange being about much more than the “information content.”

You don’t have to agree with me, but it’s frustrating for my conversation partner to take what I bring to a conversation while demanding to also take more than I’m willing to offer.

You’re free to allow people to record you, or analyze you, or machine-summarize you, or livestream you for the judgment and entertainment of the internet-dwelling masses, or whatever you’d like.

And I’m free to say: do not record me. Ever. Even on a rolling buffer, even “just for note-taking.” Even if it “only lives” some specific digital place. Unless I specifically say it’s OK, ahead of time; and we agree on how specifically the processed-me-byproduct will be used.

I’m not unreasonable! Sometimes the answer is yes! Is it for accessibility? Of course, go for it! Thank you for asking. Do we want to make a statement for the record? Great! But ask.

Funnily enough the “soul sucked out” trope occurred to me too, but it seems like we take different lessons from it. For me, it cues stories about a bunch of economically powerful people inserting themselves into places and situations where other people lived. Using their new camera technology to exploit those people’s images and likenesses, and justifying it by rolling their eyes together at how superstitious and backward and dumb those people were for not liking it. As if it were impossible for somebody to understand the thing and still not want it used on them.

And thus figuring their superiority gave them permission to “educate” the people whose likenesses they sought to exploit. And if the subjects still didn’t like it, it must be their shortcoming (since all right-thinking people obviously agree about matters of the soul and of cameras).

So it was OK to disregard their subjects’ beliefs, and their subjects’ dignity. The camera-pushers were entitled, by dint of their superior certainty, to treat people like specimens.

I agree there’s a parallel, but I think the people who were in the wrong were the people forcing the cameras on people who didn’t want to be involved.

[ETA, for @cindyllm: Your provocations are sublime, and I'm grateful that you continue to confound those of us who walk with the dead. You keep me off balance like nobody else. Is that your LinkedIn, or would I be spamming a random Canadian person?]

Apple isn't making you feel anything, you're doing it all on your own. There may be a transcription of what you said, oh no the sky is falling.

Wanted to add: the Watch has been off my wrist since the announcement, will be sold this week.

Marital strife is a few years out from getting a lot more evidence-based.

> I don't believe it. Photography was invented by non-Big Tech, and was widely popular and useful before Big Tech adopted it.

Cameras were invented before big tech. Big tech took cameras and made them better and more ubiquitous. Microphones were invented before big tech. Big tech is taking them and making them better and more ubiquitous.

To be clear, I agree that the leaders of these companies are weird and untrustworthy. I'm arguing that the utility they will offer the world is worth far more to most people than the privacy concerns. Because of this, most people will happily adopt this technology.

The always on ai summary feature does not, it just does its thing in the background.

“Always listening” in the way people have been conspiratorially claiming your phone is listening to show you ads is silly.

Always listening in that the owner could run an application that could be recording them and you on the other hand has been a possibility since pretty much day one.

How is this different from a privacy standpoint of someone simply memorising what you said in the last fifteen seconds and scribbling it down onto a piece of paper?

You’re sounding… hysterical.

Even if you regularly say things that must never be tied back to you, like.. you are in the mafia or you’re an actual spy or whatever, and every single person around you has this on their wrist listening to every word you say all of the time… Nothing changes for you.

The users of the watches still have to take action to use the audio, which they too would have heard anyway, and could have transcribed and texted to someone or written down.

Oh… wait… are you MIB? Are you concerned that your memory eraser wand won’t wipe Apple Watch recordings of the last 15 seconds, allowing the public to finally know about aliens amongst us?

I know that sounds silly, but unless you can erase the memories stored in human brains, then you must realise that everything you say in the presence of meat computers with audio listening devices attached (ears) can be recorded (memorised).

There is no transcript - you make claims about what Apple “never mentions “ but they do - in great detail:

“Audio from the microphone enters the Secure Exclave of Apple Watch, where it is initially processed for speech, sounds, or music, without transcribing or storing the raw audio. This buffer is a continuously overwritten stream that exists only within the protected hardware and never creates an audio recording”

https://www.apple.com/privacy/docs/Audio_Intelligence_Privac...

I think the times someone has something to say that is so sensitive they don't want a record of any kind kept, are rare unless you are a clandestine agent or military - and it's probably worth just asking those in literal earshot "Hey, I need to tell you something off the record, please make sure to turn off any AI transcription or similar."

IDK about you but most of the shit I say, I'd be happy for the hearer's assistant to be listening and potentially adding the things we agreed on to their to-do lists or calendars.

hmm. You talk to your coworker about some juicy gossip in cafe next to me. I have to put lead in my ears? and who cares about people with different languages, hearing difficulties etc etc...