Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | grey-area's commentslogin

Surely you'd also have to ban phones and other devices with microphones? All these devices can trivially be set up to record, so if your goal is full security, you should be a no phones workplace.

Given how much people tend to get distracted by their phones, I am surprised most workplaces do not have a phone ban.

Already do that in some situations.

The watches have had a microphone for ages haven’t they?

Why does this feature change things? Unless it can’t be turned off?


Yeah but it's pretty obvious when someone has one recording. Now it's not. And it's impossible to tell which version of the watch people have.

My device has no microphone. Promise.

How would you verify?


It’s the other way around - for secure environments there is an approved device list. If your device is not on that list, it does not go in.

There is also an approved human list. And the approved humans carry responsibility and consequence when going into the space.


My device is listed model XYZ. Promise.

How would you verify?


Look at it.

This is the part where you repeat the same comment and substitute in modifying the software, opening the device and putting in listening hardware, putting a microphone under your skin, attaching a microcontroller to their outside walls to analyze vibration patterns, etc. Luckily, the world doesn't operate on pedantry. They care about removing 99% of attack vectors, the remaining 1% is covered by you being on the line. If your office permits outside recording hardware, someone 'forgetting' that their device was recording is a mishap. But if it only approves certain devices and finds out you did James Bond-level gadgetry to circumvent their measures, guess what image that'll paint on you.


Some services offer modified devices without a camera or mic for high-security environments. https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-w...

I imagine this is why Apple has kept the mic array and camera as separate removeable components in their devices when pretty much everything else is integrated.


I have not readded those components. Promise.

How would you verify?


If it’s an Apple device, it’s pretty easy to verify, if you’re not getting into the realm of spycraft. Open the stock recording app from the store and try to record after verifying the preferences allow recording. This is sufficient for catching bad actors who don’t have immense resources behind them. Even easier if it’s a managed device.

If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period, metal detectors and patdowns on both entry and exit.


The moment a cache becomes load-bearing you have a database again, except it's in RAM, nobody backed it up, and its failure mode is silence.

Article flagged as AI slop.


You think this big clunky thing isn’t going to be a niche at $2000?

Suburban wives will have it in droves

I’m buying it just to flex on everyone whose phones cost merely $1000

But have you got the I Am Rich app, the apotheosis of conspicuous consumption?

Without that you are nothing.


If we’re talking about unattainable dreams, I want a scroll rather than a folding phone - it’d be much better than a me-too form factor like this.

Don’t expect this to sell well - too big for trouser pockets and not enough advantages to the form factor, plus inevitably wear will make it either unprofitable for Apple or an expensive mistake for the purchaser.

The price point also outs it squarely in the luxury end of the market rather than mass-market.


Or searching anonymised logs for mentions of this problem and using that as part of the context or training.

This would work just as well and have plausible deniability.


Exactly! This is the real Occam's Razor explanation.

Or, using anonymised data, search for anyone seriously trying to tackle this problem - probably about 10 people in the entire world and use their ideas as a starting point. They wouldn’t even need to be watching specific accounts or using de-anonymised data if they know what they’re looking for.

The answer to this is obvious: the effect on the multi-billion dollar valuation in the imminent IPO.

I think those are pretty unreasonable terms and it’s sad that you’re defending them.

Does google docs own the content of docs you make with it? Does Apple claim ownership of discoveries made using their tools?


Often with a hint on how to solve something, solving it is much much easier. It seems like that's what happened here.

Very weird behaviour from OpenAI, offering partial credit to on person, but not the other person involved. Trying to bully the mathematicians involved (see threats quoted upthread).

I suppose it's the sort of amoral behaviour we've come to expect from them.


This is inevitable unfortunately with LLMs.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: