521–530 of 609 posts
Runs on Apple's private cloud compute, but is not available to Apple... That seems like a contradiction.
https://security.apple.com/documentation/private-cloud-compu... https://security.apple.com/blog/expanding-pcc/ https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/
Very Apple-ish approach to AI catch up: wrap an external tool in a privacy architecture, embed into the OS and productize the orchestration layer. It will be interesting to see if the Private Cloud Compute + on-device routing can make third-party model capabilities feel like a first-party system without leaking user context to the model provider. If Apple handles the Google-Apple boundary right, this will be an elega…
All I know is that Siri is a terrible user experience.
If I can't even trust the results given by ChatGPT and Claude at their highest level of reasoning in my daily life and work, would I be willing to use Siri AI to handle the important scenarios depicted in the livestream?
The idea that someone would go on a multi hour car trip based on an AI-generated route without manually checking where they're actually going is quite funny to me. Some older HN members will remember when the first stories a la 'the GPS told me to drive down that ravine' started coming out. I'm looking forward to "my AI assistant routed me to Kangiqiniq, Canada and border security detained me when I couldn't produce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does verify mean? Can they verify the private cloud is completely immune to nationstate actors, has no zero-day vulnerabilities, is completely bulletproof in a court of law and can never be compelled to secretly share info with government(s), etc? I think the users fear here is real. "We did good due diligence at the consumer level" and "we're completely immune to nationstate hackers and clandestine legal cases"…
You should read the paper. Like any good security paper, it doesn’t assert immunity to particular parties. Instead, covers things like how PCC attests that the running software image is identical to the publicly-available, forensically-studied one. Fear is real for sure, but don’t let fear be an excuse to lose rigor in thinking.
All server security measures are irrelevant if every client req/res is dragnet siphoned off to NSA servers in plaintext. It would also afford the corporation deniability even if they were aware or involved.
This is why everything than can feasibly be E2EE (or performed locally) should be, unless the data is explicitly public. There are too many opportunities for compromise even when the provider has the best of intentions, and ruling class psychopaths aren't intentionally destroying democracy or implementing big brother.
If I can't even trust the results given by ChatGPT and Claude at their highest level of reasoning in my daily life and work, would I be willing to use Siri AI to handle the important scenarios depicted in the livestream?
The idea that someone would go on a multi hour car trip based on an AI-generated route without manually checking where they're actually going is quite funny to me. Some older HN members will remember when the first stories a la 'the GPS told me to drive down that ravine' started coming out. I'm looking forward to "my AI assistant routed me to Kangiqiniq, Canada and border security detained me when I couldn't produce…
Those folk driving off bridges and into ravines is scary as hell, it implies there's people driving around that don't look further than their car bonnet whilst driving (-+5 metres).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't trust a single US tech company to keep my data private from the US government. Maybe I need a tinfoil hat, but I don't feel like I'm unjustified in this based on the history going back to echelon. Not that this is a particular jive at the USA, my own government (Danish) actively pushes for mass surveillance and non-functional e2e encryption. There is still a difference though. Google will sell my data and use…
This part of their requirements for how PCC is architected directly addresses your concern: “Verifiable transparency. Security researchers need to be able to verify, with a high degree of confidence, that our privacy and security guarantees for Private Cloud Compute match our public promises. We already have an earlier requirement for our guarantees to be enforceable. Hypothetically, then, if security researchers had…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> wrap an external tool in a privacy architecture Wouldn't it be more accurate to call Apple's architecture data protection rather than privacy? As an European citizen in a post Snowden world I would be surprised if any of my data on Apple services was actually kept private from the US government, and Apple certainly wants to own a lot of data/metadata about you. Gotta have Siri listening for carplay and so on. I wou…
From an EU perspective, Microsoft is doing data protection, Apple is doing data privacy. Microsoft's approach to data is basically "we promise nobody else but you and your government can access it, we can but we pinky swear we won't." This promise is mostly enforced at the legal layer and through legal consequences, not technical safeguards. If they think they can get away with it (or are forced to get away with it b…
If we disregard exploitation of the primary sources and focus purely on a use case, search summaries are it. Generative AI is completely useless and OpenAI and Anthropic will soon fail. The Segway is maybe fun for a day, then you ask yourself why the heck you aren't using a bike in the first place.