Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 343 posts

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#281

Post by tadala »

JeremyHerrman wrote: post #237
ec109685 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can permanently disable OpenAI from training with your chat data for your account: “To disable model training, navigate to your profile icon on the bottom-left of the page and select Settings > Data Controls, and disable “Improve the model for everyone." While this is disabled, new conversations won’t be used to train our models”

Great to know! Looks like they only made this change at the beginning of May. Prior to that you had to turn off chat history which wasn't worth it to me. April 25, 2024: "To disable chat history and model training, navigate to ChatGPT > Settings > Data Controls and disable Chat history & training. While history is disabled, new conversations won’t be used to train and improve our models, and won’t appear in the histo…

You could fill a form and request them not to train; they usually approved it fairly quickly, but did not advertise it well enough!

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#282

Post by impulser_ »

solarkraft wrote: post #234

OpenAI is such a controversial company and good competitors like Anthropic, who arguably align better with their brand, exist. That makes the deal so weird to me.

It's also weird because Anthropic models are just better for these tasks. Claude responses are almost always better than GPT4.

I stopped using GPT4 because it would just yap on and on about things I don't want in the response. Claude 3 responses feel way more human like because it response with similar information a human would and not with a bunch of unneeded gibber.

By the time this roles out at the end of the year who knows what models would be the best. Why bet on one company's models? We have seen how fast open source models have caught up to GPT4. Why put all your chips into one basket?

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#283

Post by akira2501 »

101011 wrote: post #275
akira2501 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI has nothing of particularly high value. They're giving away the store right now just to claim the onboarding. This unsustainable game will end badly and soon.

Nothing of particularly high value, really?

It's actually a beneficial feature that two people can look at a market and come to two completely different conclusions about it. Yes, I suspect that OpenAI has nothing of lasting competitive value, they're currently overvalued by entities who want their money back, and you can view their recent actions and partnerships through this lens without complication.

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#284

Post by talldayo »

kolinko wrote: post #256
whimsicalism wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they're going to be using nvidia (or maybe AMD if they ever catch up) to train these models anyways

not necessarily so, in terms of tflops per $ (of apple’s cost of gpus, nit consumer), and tflops per watt their apple silicon is comparable if not better

> and tflops per watt their apple silicon is comparable if not better

If Apple currently ships a single product with better AI performance-per-watt than Blackwell, I will eat my hat.

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#285

Post by talldayo »

bbatsell wrote: post #239
lxgr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're even explicitly saying: > These models run on servers powered by Apple silicon [...] That doesn't mean that there are no Nvidia GPUs in these servers, of course.

They say user data remains in the Secure Enclave at all times, which Nvidia GPUs would not be able to access. I am quite certain that their private cloud inference runs only Apple silicon chips. (The pre-WWDC rumors were that they built custom clusters using M2 Ultras.)

Not that it matters anyways, since Apple refuses to sign Nvidia GPU drivers for MacOS in the first place. So if they own any Nvidia hardware themselves, then they also own more third-party hardware to support it.

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#286

Post by jiggawatts »

zx10rse wrote: post #232

Well I guess it is time to look around for new devices. This is by far the biggest mistake Apple made.

What would you prefer? Less capable products with fewer features? Or a Google product designed in collaboration with their advertising data hoovering team?

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#287

Post by Fricken »

hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #31
blueelephanttea wrote: post #24

IMO this really feels like the Facebook / Twitter integration from early iOS. That only lasted a few years. Apple clearly thinks it needs a dedicated LLM service atm. But still thinks it is only supplemental as they handle a bunch of the core stuff without it. And require explicit user consent to use OpenAI. And Apple clearly views it as a partial commodity since they even said they plan to add others. Tough to bet a…

There’s a lot I don’t like about Sam Altman. There’s a lot I don’t like about OpenAI. But goddamn they absolutely leapfrogged Google and Apple and it’s completely amazing to see these trillion dollar companies play catch-up with a start-up. I want to see more of this. Big Tech has been holding back innovation for too long.

Change is inevitable in the AI space, and the changes come in fits and starts. In a decade OpenAI too may become a hapless fiefdom lorded over by the previous generation's AI talent.

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#288

Post by [deleted] »

lanza wrote: post #27
blueelephanttea wrote: post #24

IMO this really feels like the Facebook / Twitter integration from early iOS. That only lasted a few years. Apple clearly thinks it needs a dedicated LLM service atm. But still thinks it is only supplemental as they handle a bunch of the core stuff without it. And require explicit user consent to use OpenAI. And Apple clearly views it as a partial commodity since they even said they plan to add others. Tough to bet a…

Ditto. They'll use it now while they stand to benefit and in 3 years they'll be lambasting OpenAI publicly for not being private enough with data and pretend that they never had anything to do with them.

[deleted]

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#289

Post by rfdearborn »

kovezd wrote: post #102
blueelephanttea wrote: post #24

IMO this really feels like the Facebook / Twitter integration from early iOS. That only lasted a few years. Apple clearly thinks it needs a dedicated LLM service atm. But still thinks it is only supplemental as they handle a bunch of the core stuff without it. And require explicit user consent to use OpenAI. And Apple clearly views it as a partial commodity since they even said they plan to add others. Tough to bet a…

Disagree. This feels more like the Google partnership with Apple' Safari that has lasted for long time. Except in this case, I think is OpenAI who will get the big checks.

This integration is way more limited and frictioned. Whereas with search Apple's fully outsourced and queries go straight to your 3rd-party default, Siri escalates to GPT only for certain queries and with one-off permissions. They seem to be calculating that their cross-app context, custom silicon, and privacy branding give them a still-worthwhile shot at winning the Assistant War. I think this is reasonable, especially if open source AI continues to keep pace with the frontier.

Re: OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership

#290

Post by philwelch »

observationist wrote: post #280
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was with you until your last sentence. By all accounts Cook was one of the world's most effective managers of production and logistics -- a rare talent. He famously streamlined Apple's stock-keeping practices when he was a new hire at Apple. How much he exercises that talent in his day-to-day as CEO is not perfectly clear; it may perhaps have atrophied. In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was v…

I look at it from a perspective of interchangeability - if you swapped Steve Ballmer in for Cook, nothing much would have changed. Same if you swapped Nadella in for Pichai, or Pichai for Cook. Very few of these men are exceptional; they are ordinary men with exceptional resources at hand. What they can do, what they should do, and what they can get away with, unseen, govern their impact. Leaders that actually impact…

> They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies.

This is absolutely true. But that doesn’t imply that Tim Cook is so unexceptional that anyone with a 120 IQ could do the same job he does. The fact that Steve Jobs himself trusted Cook as his right hand man and successor when Apple probably has literally thousands of employees with at least a 120 IQ should be a sign of that.

Partly because little of this is really a question of intelligence. If you want to talk about it in psychometric terms, based on what I’ve read about the man he also seems to have extraordinarily high trait conscientiousness and extraordinarily low trait neuroticism. The latter of the two actually seems extremely common among corporate executive types—one gets the sense from their weirdly flat and level affect that they are preternaturally unflappable. (Mitt Romney also comes across this way.) I don’t recall where I read this, but I remember reading Jobs being quoted once that Cook was a better negotiator that he was because unlike Jobs, Cook never lost his cool. This isn’t the sign of an unexceptional person, just a person who is exceptional in a much different way than someone like Steve Jobs. And, contrary to what you claim at the top of your comment, someone like Tim Cook is pretty distinguishable from someone like Steve Ballmer in the sense that Ballmer didn’t actually do a good job running Microsoft. I don’t know if that was related to his more exuberant personality—being a weirdly unflappable corporate terminator isn’t the only path to success—but it is a point against these guys being fungible.

Post reply on HN