• vosagoy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Removed by mod

      • vosagoy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        52
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Removed by mod

        • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          10 months ago

          AI, like cloud computing, is just a layman’s term for something else. You will not be able to stem the tide of language changing. It just means machine learning now. Just like how cloud computing is just a term for computing in a k8s cluster in someone’s data center.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            Neural nets have been a part of AI ever since the term was coined 70 years ago. The one thing one could complain about is that the term may be narrowing to that specific approach.

            Strictly, neural nets are a specific kind of ML and ML is a specific kind of AI. The term AI seems to have gone out of fashion in academia, though.

        • simple@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          10 months ago

          noise suppression and speech transcription are anything but useless…

        • Aatube@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          This is Intel’s plug-in, with otherwise no relation to Audacity. Plus, as long as they don’t bundle it, I don’t see a problem with it.

          • Aatube@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            I never understood the opposition to anonymized telemetry. While adding an entire network stack for it is certainly quite atrocious, there’s no problem with the principle I can see.

            • Bizarroland@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              Some people prefer to not have their every action watched and observed by some anonymous Big brother.

              The people who do not get that are the people who profit from the watching, and the people that are, best case, inconsiderate of the desires and feelings of other people.

              It is not normal nor is it natural to claim ownership of other people’s activity.

              It is normal and natural to wish to exist without being observed. Privacy is a fundamental human right and companies are taking advantage of the fact that it is not legally enforced.

              Hopefully the laws will catch up and make it so that each and every individual opportunity to directly observe a person must be explicitly approved beforehand with a set time limit on the observation, and that all telemetry must be made publically available and transparent, not only during the original acquisition of data but also in each and every single usage of that data after the fact.

              It is only fair after all that should accompany wish to observe you that they must also be equally observed.

              • Aatube@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                But if you anonymize the data, does it really mean someone has their every action watched in a harmful way?

              • Emily (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                This is an odd place to grand stand. I’m glad you have ideals, but the fact is Audacity was looking to gather industry standard telemetry data (basic system information and crashes) as an opt-in system. This information is extremely important in fixing bugs and prioritising developer resources.

                • Bizarroland@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  And I could see the forest a whole lot better if all these trees weren’t in the way.

                  It’s not that one person is doing it it’s that everyone is doing it.

                  The only way to stop everyone from doing it is to stop everyone from doing it.

                  • Emily (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    It’s pretty clear from my argument that I believe that it is entirely legitimate and unproblematic for everyone to collect basic data like system information and crashes. I’m not making an exception for Audacity, I’m broadly accepting this behaviour.