241–250 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have to be perfect to be useful, and death isn't the price of being wrong.
Death actually can be the price of being wrong. Just wait for someone to do the wrong thing with an AI tool they weren't supposed to use for what they were doing, and the AI to spit out the worse possible "hallucination" (in terms of outcome).
An LLM that gives you a detailed plan for removing a stubborn stain in your toilet that involves mixing the wrong combination of drain cleaners and accidentally releasing chlorine, is going to happen if it hasn't already, but a lot of people will read about this and go "oh, I didn't know you could gas yourself like that" and then continue to ask the same model for recipes or Norwegian wedding poetry because "what could possibly go wrong?"
And if you wonder how anyone can possibly read about such a story and react that way, remember that Yann LeCun says this kind of thing despite (a) working for Facebook and (b) Facebook's algorithm gets flack not only for the current teen depression epidemic, but also from the UN for not doing enough to stop the (ongoing) genocide in Myanmar.
It's a cognitive blind spot of some kind. Plenty smart, still can't recognise the connection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They need to in order to not look second-class in terms of chat capabilities. On the other hand, they want to make it clear when you are using ChatGPT, probably not just for privacy reasons, but also so that people blame ChatGPT and not Apple when it gets things wrong.
This may just be me because I'm a heavy ChatGPT user as-is, but I've had my fill of chat capabilities. What I really want is the context awareness, which is what they seemingly delivered on without OpenAI's help!
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.
> Privacy protections are built in when accessing ChatGPT within Siri and Writing Tools—requests are not stored by OpenAI, and users’ IP addresses are obscured. Does anybody believe Apple will not be able to know who sent a given request, and that OpenAI won't be able to use the data in the request for more or less anything they want? I read statements like this and just flat-out don't believe them anymore.
They have tech to obscure IPs in a way that prevents any one entity from being able to de-obfuscate: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102602
People who are getting your data: >Apple >OpenAI >Bill Gates by proxy >US government >??? Also, before anyone says "Oh they'd never do that!". Live in reality. They were already caught with PRISM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This partnership is structured so that no data is logged or sent to OpenAI.
Some people here somehow thinking they will simultaneously outsmart: * The CEO of a three trillion dollar company that employs 100,000+ of the best talent you could find around the world, with the best lawyers in the world one phone call away. Also, one of the best performing CEOs in modern times. AND * The CEO of the AI company (ok ... non-profit) that pretty much brought up the current wave of AI to existence and w…
I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most people with an IQ above 120 would do as well. Apple is an institution unto itself, and you'd have to repeatedly, rapidly, and diabolically corrupt many, many layers of corporate protections to hurt the company intentionally. Instead, what we see is simple complacency and bureaucracy chipping away at any innovative edge that Apple might once have had.
Maintenance and steady piloting is a far different skillset than innovation and creation.
Make no mistake, Cook won the lottery. He knew the right people, worked the right jobs, never screwed up anything big, and was at the right place at the right time to land where he is. Good for him, but let's not pretend he got where he is through preternatural skill or competence.
I know it's a silicon valley trope and all, but the c-class mythos is so patently absurd. Most of the best leaders just do their best to not screw up. Ones that actually bring an unusual amount of value or intellect to the table are rare. Cook is a dime a dozen.