[registeredcorn]

Not really. The opposite is far, far more desirable in my eyes.

Example:

* Do I care if an LLM was used to determine the volume of my doorbell? Not particularly.

* Do I care if an LLM was used to generate code to unlock my front door remotely? Absolutely!

I need a warning label cautioning me of the risks associated with generative materials. I don't care in the slightest when it isn't present, because the inherent risks associated are inherently lesser.

Batteries, not chicken breasts.

[aspenmartin]

You sure the door lock companies are hiring the best and brightest engineers? Not clear to me an LLM is not attractive in that scenario.

[djhn]

My mistrust of digital locks isn’t based on negligence from the reputable(?) manufacturers (Abloy? Reputation is in the eye of the beholder).

It’s who else has access: property and facility management, maintenance, etc. In the age of physical keys, I trusted these SMBs to be relatively capable, let’s say 7/10, in protecting those keys from most local would-be criminals and opportunists. That goes down to 2/10 for protecting digital assets, like remote unlock capabilities, from cybercrime.

As soon as there is a viable market connecting cybercriminals with local criminals, whether it’s vertically integrated organised crime or something like carding forums, physical access exploitation is bound to become a problem.

[em-bee]

how do you know the door volume code hasn't somehow touched the unlocking code?