> Passively listening ambient audio is being treated as something that doesn't need active consent

That’s not accurate. There are plenty of states that require everyone involved to consent to a recording of a private conversation. California, for example.

Voice assistants today skirt around that because of the wake word, but always-on recording obviously negates that defense.

▲

paxys 8 hours ago | parent [-]

AI "recording" software has never been tested in court, so no one can say what the legality is. If we are having a conversation (in a two party consent state) and a secret AI in my pocket generates a text transcript of it in real time without storing the audio, is that illegal? What about if it just generates a summary? What about if it is just a list of TODOs that came out of the conversation?

▲

pclmulqdq 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Speech-to-text has gone through courts before. It's not a new technology. You're out of luck on sneaking the use of speech-to-text in 2-party consent states.

	▲	1over137 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Of course it's new! Now it's "AI"! /s