Virtual Assistant v2.0

is there any virtual assist / voice activated software that's not botware?

I share the same frustrations. Not one seems to be disconnected from the botnet. MS is further along because in the nineties they acquired damn near every voice company that was active at the time.

>>62369142
>I would rather have AI that takes over the world developed by freetards than evil corporations
Someone finally gets it.

Paid-for software is nice in that it (supposedly) puts deep resources behind it for development, but no-one bothers with the hard questions: who has control? do you really own your software? do you have any control at all? are you just a renter - or worse, a sharecropper - with your software?

I'd rather have "freetards" make my work tools than someone that has an interest in skullfuckery. It's bad enough that IT is infested with bullshit like "it's cheap to buy but the annual license fees cost more than the outright purchase of a competing product" or my favorite (because I've had to deal with it) "I have to fix all of my vendor's dumbass problems because they won't spend the money needed to hire competent programmers" (yes this shit has really happened)

>>62369161
Mycroft's current installation does have cloud hooks aka "we ship your shit off to someone else", but there is a stand-alone mode that doesn't use cloud functions too.

There are older ones out there, notably thoughttreasure, which disappeared for over a decade and then mysteriously re-appeared after IBM came out with Watson. By the way, the guy that did thoughttreasure was the same guy that helped head up Watson - hint hint. The old TT software is rought around the edges, keep in mind it was 99-01 when it came out. But I've wondered about ripping out the text-to-speech and speed-to-text parts of Mycroft and grafting them to TT...giving a much more powerful AI.

Currently, Mycroft's biggest weakness is that it is a response system - it's not even close to a weak AI. The biggest AI component is the speech-to-text and intent parsers, which break down what you say into bite size chunks. The rest of it is pretty standard fare, a messaging bus that uses some associative mapping to call modules with the resulting data from the intent parser. It's all straight code from there, it's not really "smart" so much as a plain ol' dispatcher.

>>62369142
>Mycroft is the most developed FOSS project in this field
The age of computer waifus has begun

File: Virtual waifu.png (659KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 1280x720px

It should also look good

File: robo_waifu.jpg (183KB, 1400x1400px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1400x1400px

>>62371463
>>62371668
You're jumping the gun (or in this case, the waifu) a bit.

We need to get something that works before we wrap it in ... whatever. You're starting from the outside going in, making it all form, little substance.

We need substance, after which we can wrap it in any form. Pic related.

>>62371853
See, you need to not think in terms of fixed form factors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcKaNqfykg

I don't care that it's waifu shit, I care that it's proof of concept. It doesn't matter that I have a hologram, or the thing is wrapped in a tank body, it matters only that it (a) is loyal and (b) actually works.

>>62371853
>>62372105
Here is another example (yes, I am samefag in this post and the other two)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu_mqsjKzWM

No fucks are given about the container - the intelligence, the "assistant part" - that's they key.

>>62372129
Is this literally just a fucking video game model or something?

>>62372163
as I said, no fucks are given. That was not the point. The point - which did a fly-by at MACH 2 over your head - was that the container shouldn't fucking matter.

>>62372194
How does that video of a tank-thing support your argument?

>>62372163
both
>>62371853
and
>>62372129
aren't real to begin with...
>>62372105
is an expensive toy for shut-ins at $2,600 (even if it does do English)

Worry about the container later...

>>62372253
never mind, let's move on - you're getting hung up on aethetics. I'm trying to point out that it could be a computer in a lump of shit, it won't matter (unless you have to stand next to it) what it looks like.

Let's focus on what it can do, rather than what it looks like, mkay?

>>62372288
I'm just >>62372163 and >>62372253, those are my only posts in the thread. I'm just confused as to how the video is connected to digital assistants

>>62372306
It was an admittedly poor example of ideas about "containers" for this new Virtual Assistant. I was trying to point out that the "body" has nothing to do with the "mind", it's not an organic organism, it's a construct, which means you can connect the "mind" to whatever "body" you like. It could be a cube with a light and a speaker, it could be the video on a screen, it could be something sending messages to a cheap knock-off smartwatch, it could be something on your phone, it could be a 4-legged robot, it could be the waifu hologram (the video), etc. etc.

>>62369142
What would you do if AI will do all your tasks? Do you even realize that you'll be useless for society? Do you think the corporations will let you live if you're useless to them?
Fucking useless faggots, just pray that this era wouldn't come in your lifetime.