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

Siri AI

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 746 posts

Re: Siri AI

#291

Post by dwaite »

himata4113 wrote: post #201
pastel8739 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Given the serious risks to users, Apple designed a solution called Trusted System Agent — an intermediary that would allow virtual assistants to safely access the same features and capabilities as Siri AI for devices in the EU. Apple also shared a plan to launch Siri AI in the EU while gradually rolling out this new solution over an 18-month period. The European Commission said no. In fact, the European Commission…

"Trusted System Agent" imo sounds like an apple approved agent which would only be available to companies that accept apples (likely unreasonable) demands and would completely lock smaller companies out of the ecosystem.

My limited understanding is that it would be a local model that exists only to determine a limited set of local information necessary to answer the user's request. This request and information would then be shared with the third party. Third parties would otherwise not have access into the local semantic model based on user personal data.

Re: Siri AI

#292

Post by _boffin_ »

crancher wrote: post #67
speak_plainly wrote: post #35

The demo Mike Rockwell gave at WWDC was interesting. He kinda showed off Siri as like the Star Trek computer for your phone. I hope this is the direction Apple is going to continue in. Having AI as a user interface is way more interesting than chat bots, image editors, or copy editing.

I think the key thing is that Spotlight is now creating a... knowledge graph? of everything on your device for Siri's consideration. That's potentially very useful.

The "knowledge graph" has been there for a long long time....

Re: Siri AI

#293

Post by manwe150 »

onesociety2022 wrote: post #277
thewebguyd wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is doing the right thing for users. The right thing for users would be to allow user choice, and for Apple to compete fairly. Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice. Users could stay with Siri/Apple if they care about what Apple is offering, or choose to accept t…

I never understood how any regulatory body is going to decide which APIs in iOS must be made available to third-parties to hook into. So what if I'm a third-party maker of TCP/IP stack and I want Apple to offer me the ability to sell my custom TCP/IP stack to my iOS customers as a replacement for the stock TCP/IP stack that ships with iOS. Clearly no regulatory body has cared about that because it's too niche of a sp…

Replacement TCP/IP stack sounds like a VPN—which iOS allows

Re: Siri AI

#294

Post by hashmap »

tyre wrote: post #253
himata4113 wrote: post #154

I read through the entire DMA rant that apple has here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de... This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI. Apple already: 1) requires developers to submit ID to publish an app on the appstore (at least I had to after ~1000 downloads to be able to publish an update) 2) has strong kernel enfo…

It’s kind of funny that the EU’s regulation here would force Apple to allow options that are worse for user privacy. Apple is the least incentivized to farm data from its users; in fact, that’s a huge selling point. They mentioned it over and over and over in the WWDC keynote today. In my opinion, Apple is doing the right thing for users. It’s not like they have a huge revenue stream here. Yes, there will be some fea…

if for a second you believe that what apple says the regulators told them is the same thing as what the regulators told them, i have a cow farm under the titanic to sell you

Re: Siri AI

#295

Post by jaggederest »

onesociety2022 wrote: post #277
thewebguyd wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is doing the right thing for users. The right thing for users would be to allow user choice, and for Apple to compete fairly. Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice. Users could stay with Siri/Apple if they care about what Apple is offering, or choose to accept t…

I never understood how any regulatory body is going to decide which APIs in iOS must be made available to third-parties to hook into. So what if I'm a third-party maker of TCP/IP stack and I want Apple to offer me the ability to sell my custom TCP/IP stack to my iOS customers as a replacement for the stock TCP/IP stack that ships with iOS. Clearly no regulatory body has cared about that because it's too niche of a sp…

> What about making Apple Watch specific APIs in iOS be made available to all third-party watch makers so any one can bring any smartwatch and use it just as effectively as the Apple Watch with an iPhone? What about all the AirPods specific APIs that lets Apple offer a better experience with AirPods than a generic bluetooth earbuds? What about Apple Pencil? And so on...

Don't threaten me with a good time? All of those seem like great policies. The fact that I cannot use an apple watch with an android phone is ridiculous, and vice versa as well.

Re: Siri AI

#296

Post by yesitcan »

> Aga sent you a message about Calanthea, a plant.

> Aga: have you heard of Calanthea? It’s a plant.

Really groundbreaking use of AI!

Re: Siri AI

#298

Post by himata4113 »

dwaite wrote: post #284
himata4113 wrote: post #154

I read through the entire DMA rant that apple has here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2026/06/due-to-dma-siri-ai-de... This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI. Apple already: 1) requires developers to submit ID to publish an app on the appstore (at least I had to after ~1000 downloads to be able to publish an update) 2) has strong kernel enfo…

> This feels like it could be solved with a list of permissions that the user has to turn on when using 3rd party AI. The device won't be able to ask for significantly more permissions than Apple asks for their own model for regulatory reasons, nor will it be able to convey the seriousness of granting the permission (e.g. immediately give unrestricted access to the vast majority of personal information/documents stor…

Apple could have the same kind of permission dialogues with their own models (and they actually should). Each and every (first-time) use of a feature should:

  1) ask for permission explaining the scope
  2) warn you about the dangers with a confirmation / nevermind option
Putting this in practice:

  1) Acme AI requires access to your email provider in order to execute this request. Grant / Deny
  2) You're about to let Acme AI read and send emails on your behalf, this might be dangerous due to X and Y. Do you want to continue? / Nevermind.
In this case:

  1) Asks for access to a service
  2) Asks for a specific use-case of the service
1 is access to data, you might want to give broad access to some applications and input data

2 is permission to act, but you might want to deny access to some parts such as sending email and scope to summarization

Re: Siri AI

#299

Post by OrangeDelonge »

onesociety2022 wrote: post #277
thewebguyd wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is doing the right thing for users. The right thing for users would be to allow user choice, and for Apple to compete fairly. Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice. Users could stay with Siri/Apple if they care about what Apple is offering, or choose to accept t…

I never understood how any regulatory body is going to decide which APIs in iOS must be made available to third-parties to hook into. So what if I'm a third-party maker of TCP/IP stack and I want Apple to offer me the ability to sell my custom TCP/IP stack to my iOS customers as a replacement for the stock TCP/IP stack that ships with iOS. Clearly no regulatory body has cared about that because it's too niche of a sp…

I think if you actually invested time into researching the DMA you will be able to understand why they are making certain decisions.

Re: Siri AI

#300

Post by dwaite »

thewebguyd wrote: post #256
tyre wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s kind of funny that the EU’s regulation here would force Apple to allow options that are worse for user privacy. Apple is the least incentivized to farm data from its users; in fact, that’s a huge selling point. They mentioned it over and over and over in the WWDC keynote today. In my opinion, Apple is doing the right thing for users. It’s not like they have a huge revenue stream here. Yes, there will be some fea…

> Apple is doing the right thing for users. The right thing for users would be to allow user choice, and for Apple to compete fairly. Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice. Users could stay with Siri/Apple if they care about what Apple is offering, or choose to accept t…

> Apple allowing third party access doesn't automatically mean user data gets hoovered up by OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. It just means users now get the choice, if they want to make that choice.

Apple is also restricted in the sort of consent prompts they give the user. That could matter when a non-technical users is prompted by a third party app to effectively allow unfettered access to all user personal data on the device.

Sometimes when you look at the functional requirements for a feature it turns out to be a bad idea. In the EU, functional requirements can come after-the-fact from regulator interpretation of the DMA. Until Apple determines what those requirements actually are going to be, releasing a potentially harmful feature is irresponsible.

Post reply on HN