this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
560 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

60072 readers
4000 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
[email protected]
[email protected]
L4s
enu
560
Running AI is so expensive that Amazon will probably charge you to use Alexa in future, says outgoing exec (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology
185 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Running AI is so expensive that Amazon will probably charge you to use Alexa in future, says outgoing exec::In an interview with Bloomberg, Dave Limp said that he "absolutely" believes that Amazon will soon start charging a subscription fee for Alexa

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pyldriver 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

God I wish, I would just love local voice control to turn my lights and such on and off... but noooooooooooo

[–] Otkaz 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] pyldriver 1 points 1 year ago

I have home assistant, but have not heard anything good about rhasspy. Just want to control lights and be able to use it to play music and set timers. That being said I run home assistant right now and can control it with Alexa and Siri but.... I would like local only

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have that with just my phone, using Wiz lights and ITEEE. It's the only home automation I even have because it's the only one I found that doesn't necessarily need a special base station like an Alexa or Google Home.

[–] AA5B 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But you want a local base station, else there’s no local control. You want to use local-only networks like z-wave, zigbee, Thread, Bluetooth, etc, even though they require a base station because that’s what gives you a local-only way of controlling things.

Matter promises a base station may no longer be necessary for smart devices to control each other, but it is rolling out very slowly

I also wonder what I’ll be able to do with the Thread radio in the iPhone 15 Pro

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The base stations are what uses the cloud/AI shit. The setup I have doesn't even require an Internet connection or wifi; it's entirely bluetooth. Why in the hell would I want a base station that costs money, is controlled by Amazon or Google, and requires an Internet connection for my local shit?

I don't want a piece of hardware that does nothing but act like a fucking middleman for no good reason.

[–] foggenbooty 1 points 1 year ago

That is not necessarily true. Some base stations use the internet, yes, but not all. For example a Philips hue does not require internet access, nor does Lutron Caseta. As the other person posted, Home Assistant is the absolute best (IMO) way to do everything locally without the internet.

Your system, while it might work for you, does not scale well due to the limited range and reliability of Bluetooth. You'd likely be better off to adopt a more robust protocol like Z-wave, or ZigBee and get a hub that you have full control over.

[–] AA5B 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m a huge fan of Home Assistant. You might look into it