Technology

The same question was asked a million times during the crypto boom. "They're insisting that [some-crypto-project] is a safe passive income when people have proven that it's a ponzi scheme. Who do they expect to believe them?" And the answer is, zealots who made crypto (or in this case, AI) the basis of their entire personality.

Their target audience are the most gullible tech evangelists in the world that think AI is magic. If there was a limit to the lies those people are willing to believe, they wouldn't be buying the thing to begin with.

They are technically not wrong when they say that the whole experience isn't made up of just an App

They are intentionally dodging the ACTUAL question.

Anyways here is a leak of their "LAM", which is just playwright for the most part. https://web.archive.org/web/20240424133441if_/https://pixeldrain.com/api/file/vYHXbUwP?download

With that, we have both components, yay?

It’s the Juicero strategy.

“You can’t squeeze our juice packs! Only our special machine can properly squeeze our juice packs for optimal taste!”

What I don't get is why anyone would like to buy a new gadget for some AI features. Just develop a nice app and let people run it on their phones.

The answer is "marketing"

They have pushed AI so hard in the last couple of years they have convinced many that we are 1 year away from Terminator travelling back in time to prevent the apocalypse

Magic

In all reality, it is a ChatGPTitty "fine"tune on some datasets they hobbled together for VQA and Android app UI driving. They did the initial test finetune, then apparently the CEO or whatever was drooling over it and said "lEt'S mAkE aN iOt DeViCe GuYs!!1!" after their paltry attempt to racketeer an NFT metaverse game.

Neither this nor Humane do any AI computation on device. It would be a stretch to say there's even a possibility that the speech recognition could be client-side, as they are always-connected devices that are even more useless without Internet than they already are with.

Make no mistake: these money-hungry fucks are only selling you food cans labelled as magic beans. You have been warned and if you expect anything less from them then you only have your own dumbass to blame for trusting Silicon Valley.

I think the issue is that people were expecting a custom (enough) OS, software, and firmware to justify asking $200 for a device that's worse than a $150 phone in most every way.

Without thinking into it I would have expected some more custom hardware, some on device AI acceleration happening. For one to go and purchase the device it should have been more than just an android app

Yes, but it's also unauthenticated (it doesn't verify it comes from the real device, or even run an account belonging to a device owner)

You just need the app

Spoiler: when they let you know about the better device, your phone will already be much better at the same client-side processing anyway.

It's just marketing to be like "look at how capable our AI is with just one button". I mean if you want to be charitable it's an interesting design exercise, but wasteful and frivolous when everyone is already carrying devices that are far more capable supersets of this.

My understanding is that if you only add modules on top, those can stay closed source. It's possible the AOSP portion of the stack is still stock and untouched.

It does not need much to upload data and play audio. They could probably have gone even lower.

Holy shit, that's actually hilarious, I imagine someone would have noticed when their paste/auto type password managers didn't work

For those confused, this sounds like instead of making a real website, they spin up a vm, embed a remote desktop tool into their website and have you login through chrome running on their VM, this is sooooo sketch it, its unreal anyone would use this in a public product.

Imagine if to sign into facebook from an app, you had to go to someone else's computer, login and save your credentials on their PC, would that be a good idea?

I may not fully understand the situation, but AOSP offers an API called Accessability that allows an app to hook and modify how the user interacts with the UI. the best example is probably Talkback.