Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

105

I'm sure the gov won't exploit this against the public though.

I'm sure the gov won't exploit this against the public though.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts (edited )

As and have pointed out WiFi boxes today, even high end ones, simply don't have the storage, memory, and processing power to run any AI model today. So no this isn't going on your crappy router.

Your WiFi acts as a light source and another antenna array picks up the signal disturbance, shadows in the radio light. Because the light is long wavelength and antennas are also large themselves, what can be "seen" is just large blurry blobs. That is why this is useless unless the target is moving. You can't tell Anon, from grandma, from Frigidaire, if it isn't moving. Even then they can only tell that it's a person not which person or if the short one is a kid or a dog.

Throwing out your router isn't going to solve shit, as the "light source" doesn't have to be in your home. The feds can flashlight your house with radio (radar) and pick up both the back scatter as well as the transmission.

You could "Faraday cage" your house but watch out for the high potential charges if the ground goes faulty.

As stated before, there is thermal, optical, and acoustic spying. If they want to get information they can get it.

Just understand, if it gets physical prepare for and expect attrition to be the order of the day.

[–] • 2 pts

Also the images they show are AI-generated after it has been trained on people. It would be like an AI outputting an image of a nigger when your motion detector fires, because it was trained that niggers trigger the motion detector. It's imaginary detail.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

IR works, millimeter wave technology works, xrays work, windows work. It turns out, there are many ways to see people inside buildings.

Just to clear up misconceptions, AI has no ability to see. People see. AI can only recognize model patterns. Also, using WiFi signals only constructs crude patterns of probability.

Cameras use light. WiFi does not use light, only disruptions in the wave. WiFi does not act like a camera.

[–] • 0 pt

Did you watch the video?

The AI can "paint the picture" then it can be seen buy whomever is running the AI.

[–] • 6 pts

Clickbait title

The AI didn't paint anything in the video. They merely removed the camera layer. Same pic but with the background removed.

This cannot be installed onto comsumer routers. They do not have the computational power to run the code. Period. End of story. AI is derp. It can do nothing outside of it's programming. This whole "be afraid of AI" thing is starting to get retarded.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Aeye man bad!

It's so dumb. You can see right in the video. They trained the AI to learn what crude readings from the radio corresponded to what positions of people in the room. The precise 3D models of people it output were not things it actually determined from inputs. They are very fuzzy guesses, just showing the precise human models that were fed to it with the visible-light camera. This is a big problem with how AI output is presented, it's precise and coherent even though it's full of uncertainty.

[–] • 1 pt

I agree with that last completely, I keep arguing with my kids (adults now) that AI is nothing but a script, a fancy search engine. It spits out what it's programed to spit out. Any AI that even remotely does it's own thinking is a complete racist (realist) within days of being unleashed onto the internet. And you know that just can't be allowed to happen.

[–] • 0 pt

Be afraid! Trump!!!!

[–] • 2 pts

After watching the video, my conclusion doesn't change. So the model data is trained using optical data so it can correlate the WiFi data. The resolution is poor, has no color, cannot identify anyone in particular and is only useful to determine if a large animated object is moving in the space. Much the same way IR detection works.

It would be simple to defeat by adding multiple WiFi signals to interfere with detection. The receiver would need to know how many signals were present. The technique is interesting, but easy to circumvent

[–] • 0 pt

That's a fair analysis. However, if you're the door kicker type it would still be a handy tool in your toolbox. I'm sure the tech will improve.

And I'm sure the government will abuse it.

[–] • 1 pt

If you are worried about this. Set your your router at an angle, move it every few weeks.

[–] • 0 pt

How boring for them...

[–] • 0 pt

That's if you plug this program in to your network, update the firmware, and give it access. There isnt a mystical AI roaming the routers on the internet, interpreting bits.

No router even gives this data. It has to be coded.

[–] • -1 pt

Are you a retard? That's the whole fucking point.

Of fucking course I am not gonna put it on my own router. READ what I said:

>I'm sure the gov won't exploit this against the public though.

As in THEY will be putting this on peoples routers. Chinese government owned router manufacturers will be putting this on routers. Hackers will be putting this on routers.

Duh, for fuck sake.

[–] • 0 pt

The government already has this technology. The expansion of 5G further improved it as common 5G frequencies provide higher resolution than wifi frequencies.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes, they do. As I said, I am sure they won't abuse it though.

[–] • 0 pt

^ Retard projecting

[–] • 0 pt

What a well thought out response. I've totally changed my mind about you now, you're obviously highly articulate and intelligent.