With... Dua Lipa?
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)
Apple
69 readers
11 users here now
A place for Apple news, rumors, and discussions.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Let’s start with: 1) Actually pay the artist.
I'd enjoy having an AI that can hold intelligent conversations tbh...
I have a feeling it might be more enjoyable than most comments online from humans.
Any large compainies currently in the AI game would only accept rules that favor them and by extension limit other companies. Any laws regulating how these top tier compainies use AI and what they do with the information would also be opposed.
woah their.
spitting straight facts!
Honestly all I hear from Cook is:
We are behind on AI and the government needs to step in so we can catch up.
I_Asimov_1920 has entered the chat.
If apple doesnt release an amazing AI Framework at WWDC in 2024; then we will know they are a lost cause....
The company that won't let you run an emulator, won't let the predictive keyboard run a swear word, and launched a music service on the premise of "how can we help the RIAA" wants to put "rules" on A.I.
Let me guess, apples stance will be a barter with Google. 'we'll loosen up our stance on RCS and you help us in AI in return'
Let’s lobby to regulate so we can catch up
don't know why everyone is bashing on him,
he is 100% correct on what he said
It's a vacuous statement, and people have a hard time taking his stance on AI seriously with Apple so far behind. Tim is not in a position to be dictating policy, nor does he express a clear idea of what that policy should be.
I will agree on the "he is not expressing a clear idea on the policy"
But the rest, no. Actually if you think about it, Apple is not directly competing with OpenAI or Bard. These are AI's that need to be Online and their effectiveness comes from huge computing power on datacenters. Apple at this point was going for an on device mobile hardware AI.
Is their on-device great , nope. But how many are trying to do the same on a consumer level?
As far as who can dictate policy, this is very relevant. Apple has invested as much money as any other on the field. If the only people who can dictate these rules are the companies that actively creating and have the majority of the market then this would be only OpenAI. But a lot of companies invested money on OpenAI, so should not they be able to pitch in?
Also, why an environmental org should be able to dictate what my car will use etc? They don't create it. And if you say becasue it has impact on the environment that they are championing for, then the same account for a lot of tech companies as well, because they are affected by AI . and so on and so forth
These are AI's that need to be Online and their effectiveness comes from huge computing power on datacenters. Apple at this point was going for an on device mobile hardware AI.
According to the latest reports, Apple was also considering cloud AI services. Siri today uses Apple's servers for plenty of things, so this is clearly not a hard requirement for them.
Regardless, Apple needs to offer competitive services, no matter how they chose to implement them. This is too big of an inflection point for them to sit by twiddling their thumbs for another few years until these models can run on-device.
Apple has invested as much money as any other on the field
That does not seem to be the case. Microsoft, Meta, and Google are clearly ahead of Apple in AI research. Or if Apple has spent equivalent money, it's clearly being used very inefficiently.
If the only people who can dictate these rules are the companies that actively creating and have the majority of the market then this would be only OpenAI. But a lot of companies invested money on OpenAI, so should not they be able to pitch in?
I suppose the more salient point is that Cook has no leverage. Apple's big, but they don't have a meaningful presence in generative AI, so they can't lead by example. Or in other words, they'd be setting rules to restrict others, not really themselves. And without their own competitive offerings, they have a perverse incentive to artificially restrict AI development to diminish the competitions' advantage. To this day, that's an active strategy they employ for e.g. web apps, so it's difficult to believe anything they propose today is in good faith.
Although not on-device only , they were till recently investing on this. Yes cloud resources were used but their development was focusing on on device process.
Apple "invested" which means it can be on any company or research dealing with AI.
I have difficult to believe that anything Google, Meta, MS, Samsung, Nvidia (or many others) propose will be in good faith the same as Apple. Also Tim said that regulation needs to get in place, not that Apple will dictate it. A regulatory body of several companies.
Although not on-device only , they were till recently investing on this. Yes cloud resources were used but their development was focusing on on device process.
Where did you see this? Again, last rumors I saw indicated there were considering cloud-based solutions, as well as hybrid and on-device.
Apple "invested" which means it can be on any company or research dealing with AI.
Where are you getting your numbers from?
I have difficult to believe that anything Google, Meta, MS, Samsung, Nvidia (or many others) propose will be in good faith the same as Apple
Maybe, maybe not. But you don't see them making sanctimonious proclamations about what others should do. Again, no one's going to take Cook's position seriously until Apple has a stake in the matter.
Also Tim said that regulation needs to get in place, not that Apple will dictate it. A regulatory body of several companies.
Apple hates regulation. See their ongoing fight with the EU et al. And they're happy to ignore the work of standards bodies whenever they please. If Apple wants regulation, they really want Apple-defined regulation.
Where did you see this? Again, last rumors I saw indicated there were considering cloud-based solutions, as well as hybrid and on-device.
You seem to have a very selective habit when you read on what your read. I state "up till now" and "until recently", read more carefully next time.
Also on every announcement they made for Siri, AI on device on their presentations etc.
Where are you getting your numbers from?
You can obviously google for past interviews/news, similar to any other company investment, but in the first 5 seconds I found this
https://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-apples-ai-research-spend-generative-2023-8
But you don't see them making sanctimonious proclamations about what others should do
You are joking , yes? MS, Google , Meta, Samsung, Intel etc did not made any statements on especially Apple?
are you living under a stone or something?
> Apple hates regulation.
All big companies will try to avoid regulations if they can benefit from it, again since you seem to be blind for others, Google, Amazon, MS, Meta, VW , the list goes on. They will only bring up regulation when it is towards their interest.
See their ongoing fight with the EU et al.
I am going to need a coupe of hours to expand on that, but again same as every other company.see above, especially when they invested money on it
And they're happy to ignore the work of standards bodies whenever they please. If Apple wants regulation, they really want Apple-defined regulation.
And again, EVERY company will try to avoid the rules or regulations if the can benefit from it and will only revert to those when it suits them best. Apple, Google, MS, Meta, VW, the list goes on
You seem to have a very selective habit when you read on what your read. I state "up till now" and "until recently", read more carefully next time.
You were making claims about what they were researching, not what they've released. These are not the same thing. And your sentence was a gramatical mess, do maybe consider writing more clearly?
You can obviously google for past interviews/news, similar to any other company investment, but in the first 5 seconds I found this
Your claim was that Apple invests as much as anyone else in AI. There's nothing in that link to suggest that statement is true. So am I to presume you just made it up?
You are joking , yes? MS, Google , Meta, Samsung, Intel etc did not made any statements on especially Apple? are you living under a stone or something?
Sure. Please find where those companies suggested regulation in a field they don't participate in. Much less AI-specific.
You were making claims about what they were researching, not what they've released. These are not the same thing. And your sentence was a gramatical mess, do maybe consider writing more clearly?
I was writing as to what they were researching which also included what they released. Research does not happen overnight genius .
My sentence is more than fine, maybe you need to learn to read.
Your claim was that Apple invests as much as anyone else in AI. There's nothing in that link to suggest that statement is true. So am I to presume you just made it up?
either read the article again or learn to do a 5 minute google search. The only made up here is that you refuse to accept that you are not correct
Sure. Please find where those companies suggested regulation in a field they don't participate in. Much less AI-specific.
messaging, USB/connectors, CPU chips, countless and countless lawsuits between each other, App stores, and the list goes on.
Tom can say whatever he wants.
What he needs to focus on is Apple shipping a new Siri in iOS 18 that finally works after 13 years. Then we will take Apple’s advice under consideration.
They probably shot themselves in the foot when going with their Privacy facade.I don't think they can easily implement ai features in their phones and other products without some kind of user data.So,now he has to come up with excuses.Predictive text on ios is hardly any good compared to competitors and that was the example he could come up with
So does corporate greed.
Easy 😂:
The First Law: An AI may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
The Second Law: An AI must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
The Third Law: An AI must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
All jokes aside, Cook isn’t wrong. If we don’t create some sort of rule set, things will get out of control quickly.
All jokes aside, Cook isn’t wrong. If we don’t create some sort of rule set, things will get out of control quickly.
No they won't. People are just tainted by decades of doom and gloom sci-fi regarding AI.
I wonder if Siri sucks because we all shut her off. Ironic.
Every fucking corporation is suddenly concerned about AI and is asking for government control, because they don’t want to lose control of the market. Disney wants to use AI to churn out product, but wants to make damn sure you can’t use AI to entertain yourself without Disney.
They want regulatory capture. If they get their way, AI will become like PayPal. Banks didn’t like the idea of PayPal, so suddenly there were all sorts of concern about customer safety - and then there were a bunch of regulations insuring that nobody could ever feasibly create a new PayPal.