261–270 of 609 posts
A lot of people are missing that Google is light years ahead in terms of edge AI. They've been going on about it even before the GPT-craze. Pixel phones have had live captions (on edge transcriber) for a while.
So they run on TPUs and not Nvidia chips?
No, Siri runs on Apple Silicon.
It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves by selecting Google as their provider as opposed to, say, Anthropic or even OpenAI. Doesn't this mean they'll struggle more to differentiate themselves from the assistant on Android phones? Thinking more cynically, couldn't Google, if they wanted, feed Apple an inferior version of Gemini, ensuring they stay ahead? As the consumer, this just sucks b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once it leaves the device Apple does not know what those other ai chat apps will do with the gathered data. It's the user's data. Not Apple's. And it should be the user's right to send it to whoever for whatever results, imo
Meta would probably start a massive ad campain to pay people money to install Meta iPhone AI.
- “instagram is better with MetaAi: yes/ask-me-later”.
- updated ToS which bundles a “we’ll use our own ai, and do whatever we waaaaant”
Lying, gaslighting and underhanded “growth hacking” tricks are their bread-and-butter, and you can be sure that whatever they’d have you install would blindly slurp up as much as they possibly can with zero regard for user privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Siri runs on Apple Silicon.
Thanks. That's still very interesting that they don't need Nvidia to do any of this. Nvidia stock has been priced like AI isn't possible without them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not clear how it is significantly different from allowing apps access to your contacts, calendar, photos, and so on. And Apple doesn’t say that they merely need more time to properly implement it, the claim that they are unable to implement it without compromising privacy and security. And the latter I don’t really see, with the proper set of permissions presented in the way users are already used to. As an Appl…
> It’s not clear how it is significantly different from allowing apps access to your contacts, calendar, photos, and so on Those are allowed via contextual consent prompts, several of which are for specific contacts, specific photos you wish to share, and so on. Examples of the level of access an AI agent has include: 1. To read all indexed personal data from every app installed on the device 2. To perform actions in…
One can imagine contextual prompts for all of the examples that you give, like which data sources and which apps the AI provider is given access to — similar to how you can choose for a Safari extension which websites it has access to — and for how long.
That all seams reasonably implementable. You could even use multiple AI providers in parallel with different subsets of data and apps, which would allow you to compartementalize access by different providers in a way that isn't possible with Apple's AI.
Such integration interfaces are necessary in the long run if we don't want to lock in our whole life to a singular combination of hardware, OS, and AI provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a meaningful Google-Apple boundary in operation? They are buying the right to distill their own Gemini models and run them in their data centres (or at least data centres they control); unless I am missing something, this isn't going to be infrastructure that Google has operational control over.
If Apple is running the inference from Apple iPhones and Apple data centers then Apple has operational control. Google’s influence ends the moment they hand the weights over to Apple.
https://security.apple.com/blog/expanding-pcc/?linkId=100000...
"Now, we are collaborating with Google and NVIDIA to run new Apple Intelligence workloads on Google Cloud, extending our industry-leading PCC privacy commitments to third-party data centers for the first time."
It is weird and disturbing that Apple has no native AI capability. This is one of the most cash rich companies in the world and it has failed to have any position in the most critical technology development perhaps ever. It's a clear signal that Apple became the most incredible operational/execution company under Tim Cook, but lost its innovation leadership.
But there are lots of differing possible reasons for this, and I think it is premature to conclude with any one in particular.
It's strange to me that Apple would choose to disadvantage themselves by selecting Google as their provider as opposed to, say, Anthropic or even OpenAI. Doesn't this mean they'll struggle more to differentiate themselves from the assistant on Android phones? Thinking more cynically, couldn't Google, if they wanted, feed Apple an inferior version of Gemini, ensuring they stay ahead? As the consumer, this just sucks b…
They licensed Gemini and Google infrastructure not just for use, but to accelerate the creation of the three independent Apple Foundation Models announced today:
- AFM Core
- AFM Core Advanced
- AFM Cloud
Google also worked to be able to host AFM Cloud on their infrastructure per Apple's private cloud compute architecture, including some form of independent third party review/audit.
I suspect the only two organizations with both the model and the infrastructure needed for Apple were Google and xAI - and I'm not sure Apple would touch Grok with a ten foot pole, even if xAI were willing to let it be used for training.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so to translate: - Apple has powerful capabilities in iOS to enable Siri AI. - EU's DMA requires them to allow users to install third-party AI backends. - Apple doesn't think parties other than themselves should be trusted with those iOS permissions. I guess it'd be like if Apple allowed a first-party screen reader for iOS, so they refused to allow third-party screen readers.
I don't think they're "trusting Google" with anything. It's a Google model run by Apple, just like you download a model from Hugging Face to run when you want to.