501–510 of 636 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What specifically is the dispute about factual accuracy at the root of this discussion?
There is no factual accuracy at all, only speculation and empty claims. Do you have a proof that Apple has bot farms to push its narrative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah i think the deterministic part (sending email, submit PR) is usually done by a normale script/software, agents are useful for summarizing text in a smart way, expecially if you need to aggregate text from multiple sources and it's natural language (not structured data)
This still feels like made up work. We are using AI to inflate a prompt in to a full email to send, and then the receiver is using AI to summarize it back down.
I think AI is an incredible competence magnifier. If someone knows what they are doing that competence can get magnified massively. If they do not know what they are doing, that gets magnified just as much. The tricky part is getting people with a low level but real degree of competence, which is all of us when we're starting out, to learn how to reliably magnify that.
Apple trying to sit on two chairs. Make bank selling hypeware while keeping distance to not sully their brand too much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you need the scare quotes. product lifecycles can take years and the actual neo demand was actually pretty insane. They were using it to soak up demand for binned a18 chips and it would have been irresponsible to forecast that they'd have the demand they did when there's another perfectly reasonable universe where 8 gigs was too much of a compromise and it flopped. this article's also about enterprise d…
> It's competing with a $200/mo subscription or renting server gpu time Not if you're an enterprise that wants or requires on-prem inference.
Translation: Tim Cook was caught off guard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Amphetamine app from the App Store keeps a MacBook awake even with the lid closed.
You need an app for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A C-level executive I know is getting a top-of-the-line new Mac simply to function as a personal build server and host for agentic coding instances - they are able to orchestrate so many parallel projects that they're hitting RAM limits from sessions and the builds and local test runs they're kicking off (largly unsupervised). Before AI, they'd only had a MacBook Air; this completely changes their workflows. They tal…
The general problem I have with this is that I think those C-level executive should be doing C-level stuff and not programmer stuff. If you're using AI to help with your main job, great! If you're using AI to do someone else's work, then I think maybe you should change jobs. If you want to be a programmer, go for it! But not at the expense of your "real" job. I'm pretty sure the C-level people don't want us programme…
My team is using coding agents to develop analytics and reporting applications, and an engineering automation application, specific to our needs, that simply would not exist otherwise. The cost and time would be far too great. I can easily imagine there are plenty of cases like this, for all sorts of roles, including managerial ones, where only the person doing the job understands the job well enough to specify a requirement and guide an agent to code exactly what they need.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies that ignore everything besides their legacy cash cow tend to go downhill. I'm sure there are at least a few people at Apple who's main concern is marketing the Mac mini, and those people are highly definitely trying to cook up new marketing strategies all the time
Sure. But thinking that means every article is a complicated psyop is classic correlation / causation. If you’ve hot any occam’s razor left in you, consider: 1. Apple is a masterful media manipulator, carefully planting stories like this by gradually seeding fringe media first, then more mainstream, with a clever and subtle goal of making themselves look dumb in order to trick people into, uh, ok, I’m lost here, but…
You simply promote or finance marketing materials (blog posts, podcasts, youtube videos) with a clear idea of the kind of people you want to reach, and if your "Persona" (that is, ideal customer or evangelist) model is accurate enough, they will talk endlessly about your product for free without having to directly connect with them.
I'm convinced that this is just guerilla marketing from Apple. When this started spreading a day or two ago, it was all from no-name spam media sites that are paid to publish articles. They all claimed "a source" is where they got the intel, without specifying the source. It was spreading like wildfire on socials. The same thing happened with Mac Mini's and OpenClaw. Nobody cared about or was using Mac Mini's for Ope…
People don't fact check in the first place, they don't check that facts came from a trusted source, they don't check if information has changed the last time they got it from a trusted source, etc.
Is it just me or is it scary that it seems to me as if the average person just takes everyone's word for most things, as long as the person telling them is a "trusted source" based only on tribal lines?
What’s going on isn’t Apple behind in AI model building I thought I read that somewhere on the MacRumors site in the last two years, that Apple is behind its tech peers and Apple might as well just close the doors. I always thought Apple was in a good position because unlike their peers they didn’t burn billions of dollars trying to build an AI model that has no financial moat around it. I still think they’re in a go…
They're making the smartest possible move: let others burn insane amounts of capital and time finding the quirks and once they see a viable lane, execute. It's old Steve Jobs logic. Works backwards from the customer experience to the technology (they're the only big player I see doing this).