Can’t you switch MS 2FA to use text or their authenticator?
jimi_henrik@lemmy.world
on 26 Jun 05:34
nextcollapse
I blocked Microsoft in WhatsApp and they reverted back to sending SMS messages. However, this won’t help if you (like me) I refuse to install Microsoft apps on your phone.
There’s no phone signal where I work and I’d rather not use their app if possible.
noodly_appendage@lemmy.myserv.one
on 26 Jun 05:15
collapse
A few years ago, I switched from WhatsApp to Signal. I told all my important contacts and groups that I’d delete WhatsApp at the end of the month and that they can either reach me on signal or using SMS from there on.
This was enough time to answer peoples questions and convince many people to install Signal too. My family now uses it, most of my friends do, and while all of them kept WhatsApp back then, they now use Signal to message each other.
So it is possible to make the switch and take lots of people with you.
I think another blog mentioned that you have to enable it yourself first and then press the AI button to send it to be processing. If that’s the case then it’s not that bad
From what I gather the texts are encrypted and sent to their LLMs that process it with some mechanism to verify the code being run in the cloud to process the texts is one that the WhatsApp app agreed to.
But they could just as well start siphoning the data after changing that code. Everyone will be able to see the cloud code changed if/when tbat happens but I don’t think there’s a way to differentiate that from a regular update.
Don’t think theyve opensourced any of this
Scolding7300@lemmy.world
on 26 Jun 05:50
nextcollapse
They might publish components of it enough to verify that the processing code is not emitting any data but as others said - it could’ve been done locally on the phone
chaospatterns@lemmy.world
on 26 Jun 06:14
collapse
Fascinating. Just based on your comment and nothing else, sounds like it could be something like a CPU Enclave like Intel SGX. Basically a remote client can validate that an application runs in a secure part of a remote cloud computer. The stated goal of SGX is that you only have to trust Intel and if you trust Intel and say run program X in the enclave, then only that part of the CPU can access the data, not the applications running in the non-secure enclave.
Now that brushes over some things like you still need to trust the client and IIRC in a WhatsApp situation, you don’t really know what enclave does, but the communications between the enclave and the host OS are heavily restricted. LLMs also require lots of CPU and are usually run on GPUs, so not sure how that works yet.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
on 26 Jun 04:13
nextcollapse
Would be a good feature if it works and is private.
I’m in multiple group chats and often open WhatsApp to see 800 unread messages in a single chat. I don’t want to read through all of that, but I do want to know a high level overview, so I can see if it’s something I actually want to scroll back to and have a proper read.
However, I’ve seen multiple AI summaries missing out important stuff, so that’s almost certainly going to be an issue here too.
I also want it to be completely private. They say it is, but who knows? The fact it’s not on-device is a bit of a red flag to me.
pastermil@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Jun 04:39
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
Meta can fuck off. The moment this shit appears I’m going 100% Signal.
Why not do it now?
Everyone has whatsapp and not signal is pretty much the gist of it
My family uses it, work uses it, Microsoft 2FA uses it. It’s a hassle to try to change what other people use.
Can’t you switch MS 2FA to use text or their authenticator?
I blocked Microsoft in WhatsApp and they reverted back to sending SMS messages. However, this won’t help if you (like me) I refuse to install Microsoft apps on your phone.
There’s no phone signal where I work and I’d rather not use their app if possible.
A few years ago, I switched from WhatsApp to Signal. I told all my important contacts and groups that I’d delete WhatsApp at the end of the month and that they can either reach me on signal or using SMS from there on. This was enough time to answer peoples questions and convince many people to install Signal too. My family now uses it, most of my friends do, and while all of them kept WhatsApp back then, they now use Signal to message each other. So it is possible to make the switch and take lots of people with you.
I’m already on Signal but nobody else is.
Why wait? Why not switch now?
In other words, meta is harvesting your WhatsApp data, and gives you a (potentially inaccurate) summary in exchange for feeding their LLMs.
They’ve always harvested your data but they haven’t done the actual contents of the message
I think another blog mentioned that you have to enable it yourself first and then press the AI button to send it to be processing. If that’s the case then it’s not that bad
Until they change their ToS (without telling you) and enable it by default (and hide the controls that let you decline).
It will be big news when that happens
.
it’s surprising this feature is opt-in. either way, fuck meta.
I think they’re still testing it and testing the waters with this. Probably opt-out later on
Did anyone ask for this, it’s a messaging app
probably the owner of the pictured
swordphoneThis sounds like it might be useful for some people who get lots of messages, like businesses at least, but I just don’t trust Meta.
Also, I wouldn’t trust a hallucinating LLM with my business messages honestly.
Yes!!! Keep enshittifying! Yes! nods menacingly
I’m interested in how they’ve allegedly achieved this working without anyone but you having access to the unencrypted messages.
Don’t get me wrong, I want none of this shit in a messaging app, but I’m at least interested in how that is supposed to work.
It could run entirely on-device.
Hahahahaha. It doesn’t.
According to Meta it runs on their private servers
engineering.fb.com/…/whatsapp-private-processing-…
From what I gather the texts are encrypted and sent to their LLMs that process it with some mechanism to verify the code being run in the cloud to process the texts is one that the WhatsApp app agreed to.
But they could just as well start siphoning the data after changing that code. Everyone will be able to see the cloud code changed if/when tbat happens but I don’t think there’s a way to differentiate that from a regular update.
Don’t think theyve opensourced any of this
They might publish components of it enough to verify that the processing code is not emitting any data but as others said - it could’ve been done locally on the phone
Fascinating. Just based on your comment and nothing else, sounds like it could be something like a CPU Enclave like Intel SGX. Basically a remote client can validate that an application runs in a secure part of a remote cloud computer. The stated goal of SGX is that you only have to trust Intel and if you trust Intel and say run program X in the enclave, then only that part of the CPU can access the data, not the applications running in the non-secure enclave.
Now that brushes over some things like you still need to trust the client and IIRC in a WhatsApp situation, you don’t really know what enclave does, but the communications between the enclave and the host OS are heavily restricted. LLMs also require lots of CPU and are usually run on GPUs, so not sure how that works yet.
They use GPU based enclaves. They have a white paper available. I just seemed it but they mention AMD and NVIDIA enclaves.
Seems like a Trojan horse to get users to grant access to their encrypted chats?
.
Hey Meta AI, can you summarize that for me?
ShaggySnacks had a good laugh
Would be a good feature if it works and is private.
I’m in multiple group chats and often open WhatsApp to see 800 unread messages in a single chat. I don’t want to read through all of that, but I do want to know a high level overview, so I can see if it’s something I actually want to scroll back to and have a proper read.
However, I’ve seen multiple AI summaries missing out important stuff, so that’s almost certainly going to be an issue here too.
I also want it to be completely private. They say it is, but who knows? The fact it’s not on-device is a bit of a red flag to me.
And with that, room for misinterpretation.
Bros got that 9:100 phone
And just like that, end-to-end encryption vanishes again.