this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024

55 points (88.7% liked)

Android

17658 readers

188 users here now

The new home of /r/Android on Lemmy and the Fediverse!

Android news, reviews, tips, and discussions about rooting, tutorials, and apps.

💡Content Philosophy:

Content which benefits the community (news, rumours, and discussions) is generally allowed and is valued over content which benefits only the individual (technical questions, help buying/selling, rants, self-promotion, etc.) which will be removed if it's in violation of the rules.

Support, technical, or app related questions belong in: [email protected]

For fresh communities, lemmy apps, and instance updates: [email protected]

💬Matrix Chat

💬Telegram channels / chats

📰Our communities below

Rules

Stay on topic: All posts should be related to the Android OS or ecosystem.
No support questions, recommendation requests, rants, or bug reports: Posts must benefit the community rather than the individual. Please post to [email protected].
Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos. Post memes to [email protected].
No self-promotion spam: Active community members can post their apps if they answer any questions in the comments. Please do not post links to your own website, YouTube, blog content, or communities.
No reposts or rehosted content: Share only the original source of an article, unless it's not available in English or requires logging in (like Twitter). Avoid reposting the same topic from other sources.
No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.
No piracy or unverified APKs: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content or unverified APKs, which may contain malicious code.
No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.
No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Keep it civil and friendly!
No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.

Quick Links

Our Communities

Lemmy App List

See thread

Chat and More

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

ChatGPT could soon replace Google Assistant on your Android phone (www.androidauthority.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Man this type of shit is why I'm getting rid of google Assistant and going to a FOSS home assistant setup. I don't want chat gpt. I want to add things to my calendar, my shopping list, turn off lights and open/close blinds. I want to mute speakers at a certain time with a routine that isn't broken every five minutes. I want timers that work reliably. I want to be able to make an announcement when Amazon is at the door. Why are they making this so difficult?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are there any HA smart speakers ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

A couple dev boxes:

$13 ATOM Echo
$50 S3 Box with a display
Someone made a Nest Mini Gen 2 replacement PCB but you have to have it printed yourself.
Anything you want to build with ESP32 based hardware

Nothing commercial available is very good, but hopefully that will change soon.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Must be difficult because thus far no one has been able to do any of those things with any degree of reliability.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Details!

How do you disable assistant and what do you use instead. How good is it? Does it work on pixels?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/0b789715-c7c7-425c-bb2d-c51d14c26de0.png

Yes, this works on Pixels. Home Assistant is a mature open source home automation platform.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No thanks.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Care to elaborate why not? Interested in your viewpoint

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

ChatGPT consistently makes up shit. It's difficult to tell when something is made up because it's a language model so it is supposed to sound confident as if it's any person telling a fact that they know.

It knows how to talk like a subject matter expert because that's usually what gets publicized most and thus that's what it's trained on, but it doesn't always know the facts necessary to answer questions. It makes shit up to fill the gap and then presents it intelligently, but it's wrong.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Most of the time I use assistant to either perform home automation tasks, or look stuff up online. The first one already works fine, and for the second one I won't trust a glorified autocomplete.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Good point, hallucinations only add to the fake news problem and artificial content problem.

I’ll counter with this: how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit? Should we go back to encyclopedias? Who writes those?

Edit: in case anyone isn’t aware, GPT “hallucinates” made up information in specific cases when temperature and top_p settings aren’t optimized, wasn’t saying anyone’s opinion was a hallucination of course

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Some generative chatbots will say something then link to where the info is from. That's good because I can followup

Some will just say something. That's bad and I'll have to search myself afterwards.

It's the equivalent of a book with no cover or a webpage where I can't see what website it's on. Maybe it's reputable, maybe it's not. Without a source I can't really decide

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Ya, it’s utterly baffling to me that anyone would use a tool that predicts the next word in a sentence to try and learn something. Besides, what’s the endgame when no reporter could make a living because all their words are laundered and fed into a most people are saying bot? At that point new and unknown news, information, and facts will just be filtered out unless a lot of clickbait sites steal them because they the words don’t show up in the average conversation frequently enough.

Amusing, much like the Cryptocurrency and NFT industry where everyone from the CEO of Openai to the majority of the influencers came from, the extent that the system remind useable at all is reliant on the technology being niche. If it ever actually did become the primary method the tech would fundamentally collapse under its own weight.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

how do you know the stuff you look up online is legit?

I feel like this question is rhetorical but if it's not, I'm surprised anyone on Lemmy isn't aware of how to cross reference when fact checking.

I'm more than happy to help with that if required.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yep you got me!

Was leading onto this side of the debate, but basically our collective knowledge, hell our collective experiences are not objective. Our assumptions, mistakes, wordings which result in different interpreted meanings, etc all contribute to some level of disinformation.

Now let’s not be as nit picky and accept that some detail fudging isn’t the end of the world and happens frequently. We can cross reference each others’ accounts but even that only works to an extent.

Whole cultures might bare witness to an event and perceive it to be about x y or z, whereas the next door neighbor might see it completely different.

AI to me really isn’t that far off from the winners being the ones to write the history books, or that strange or unexpected events naturally cause human brains to recollect them in incorrect detail and accuracy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fact checking is about making sure the things we know are true. You seem to be saying that we can't obtain objective facts in order to verify what is true, but this is incorrect.

It's important to understand that if needed, everything we know can be verified. You can obtain the sources of the work done that shows how it was done, when and by whom.

None of that is subjective. If it were, your TV wouldn't work, aeroplane's could not fly and the device you used to read and comment here would not exist.

"Everything" is not subjective and to say so is no different than belief in magic.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Not quite what I meant, I was merely pointing out that we should be cognizant and of how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.

All in all, central points of authority are inherently vulnerable to misinformation. I personally think communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.

Why settle to see the rainbow for your own favorite color when there’s such an amazing and valuable spectrum available. So very digital of us

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

how our world view and others views might shape and define what’s considered history or fact.

communal (and biological namely) sources of information shared and verified by each other is far more valuable.

You're still implying that obtaining objective facts is less reliable than made up stories.

Unless I'm completely mistaken, could you explain why you think that is please?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I’m admittedly a little confused on how you might still think this. Could you explain your train of thought for how I think that (what’s the bridge between the two quotes you’re using?)

To be clear, objective fact is obtainable by reproducibility (scientific process namely) but that doesn’t really work as well for “objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)

I think a lot of people blur the line between the event itself and the rationale/explanation behind it. That’s really the crux of the problem as I see it and am trying to bring awareness to.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hmm, then we could be talking past each other. I'm bridging the two as polar opposites but you say that's not what you're getting at?

“objective fact” regarding previous events when you expand them past “this event happened” (I.e. this happened because xyz)

Could you expand on this? Preferably with an example using something other than history, eg a reaction or a sum.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well no, I can’t. That’s because that snippet was in reference to non-reproducible things, like history really. Science is Queen of objectivity in that you can take the exact same steps and physics ensures that things happen again in the same way

With history, it’s about interactions between complex, ever-changing human psychologies. It’s about decisions made that might not necessarily be restricted to laws like physics, but maybe what you had for breakfast that day, or what your first interaction with another human was like.

Now technically, maybe one day in the future we could use physics and insane measurements of humans to predict behavior and what not like we can with say a chemical reaction, but that’s pretty far out and I’m not sure we’d want to do that (despot being driven to do it anyway because someone else will and they’ll use it for harm)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ok, I see now that you were talking about historical events specifically. That wasn't clear to me from the outset so I apologise for any confusion.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No problem, no need to apologize it happens and was no big deal to stay civil and talk about it! 😊

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

It was! Thank you 👍🏻

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Cause Chatgpt isn't reliable on actual information and i don't want to have any "assistant" at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Fair enough!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Collects your data, profiles you based on your typing style, what you type etc.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Regular assistants, websites, stores etc all do this exact same thing already for what it’s worth.

People do too!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

people/regular aassistants don't sell my data to do highest bidder

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

By regular assistant I meant google, Samsung, etc not like a person.

People just give it away for free to each other.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

you intentionally refuse to understand what I am saying, yes I don't use google, samsung or any other assistants either. People talking about me is not a problem corporations and governments spying on me is.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

I’m sorry excuse me? I’m not intentionally doing anything. Maybe instead of attributing malice, you might opt for ignorance next time. I can only understand what I understand and you can only communicate as effectively as you can. There’s plenty of room for leeway and benefit of doubt here, unless you’d like another hive mind Reddit clone.

Realigning with the conversation, I can understand not wanting powerful parties knowing all about you. They’re much more severe (generally) than people can be. But for some, people can be just as damaging if they have it out for you for whatever reason (gender, sexual orientation, race, success, pissed them off and they’re psychotic, etc)

My outlook on privacy isn’t to obscure or hide information but to inflate it with noise instead. Finding a back alley doorway to a building is much easier than finding the right hotel room in a complex of hotels.

Obviously not everyone subscribes to this tactic but I wanted to share my outlook as well. I was just sharing what I know and have with you. Wasn’t meant to be a heated debate.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What about.. Neither?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is literally an option you can select...

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago

which, I did

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago

How can it replace Google assistant if there is no Google assistant on my phone. (I removed it)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

I'll be able to. But I most certainly won't do it. No thanks.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I just want to be able to consistently make searches using what's on my phone screen. Is that too much to ask? The screen search button disappears every other month and I'm sick of it. I don't invoke the Assistant for any other reason.

Update: it's back again after another month long hiatus! Who knows when it'll be taken from me next!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Digital assistants are good for timers, turning on smart lights, and sometimes playing music. None of those things require a large language model to spit random text back at me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

Can't see it being that useful if it remains restricted to info 2+ years old.

You wouldn't be able to ask it the weather or anything of the sort.