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

Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

macrumors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 609 posts

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#591

Post by tomhow »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #150
slopinthebag wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, they crossed the line when they allowed photo editing apps on the AppStore which can do all the things you listed and more. It’s disgusting.

[flagged]

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#592

Post by brookst »

TalkingCodeMonk wrote: post #554
brookst wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m having a hard time parsing that. Are you suggesting that PCC specifically is sending things in plaintext, or that the security promises in the server and arch are false, or that a compromised CA means… IDK what? I’m with you on the big principles, but are you implying more specific attack vectors or just kind of maybe everything could be compromised somehow?

> In an NSA presentation slide on “Google Cloud Exploitation,” however, a sketch shows where the “Public Internet” meets the internal “Google Cloud” where their data reside. In hand-printed letters, the drawing notes that encryption is “added and removed here!” http://web.archive.org/web/20140101231153/https://www.washin... https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/06/on-nsa/

So still just innuendo, nothing specific to how PCC works?

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#593

Post by bloppe »

msh wrote: post #385
bloppe wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law does not require Apple to grant all permissions to all apps for all users. It just requires Apple to ask users if the user wants to grant elevated permissions to specific apps that they download. The user can always say "no", which should obviously be the default. The situation is that Apple won't even allow users to grant elevated permissions to any 3rd party app, even if the user wants to.

But then third party apps can force users to accept this before they work (here I am especially thinking of school and work apps that people might be forced to use).

App store guidelines already strictly prohibit developers from demanding overbroad or unnecessary permissions, and they expressly forbid locking unrelated features behind irrelevant data requests. Any app that attempts to do so can easily be yanked off the app store by a single complaint.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#594

Post by e28eta »

Rohansi wrote: post #321
e28eta wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there’s a case that Apple’s commitment to privacy here will increase participation by 3rd party developers. For example, if I’m maintaining a secure chat app, I think I’d be more likely to adopt the APIs to share the chat messages with the system AI due to Apple’s promises that the data will either be processed On Device, or in their Private Compute Cloud. If I instead believe that sharing the chat messages w…

> This user might be okay with their data going to this other provider, but what about the people they’re messaging? I have a responsibility and a commitment to _all_ of my users to protect their data. That's nice of you but your users are going to just copy-paste data to and from ChatGPT anyway.

I think the difference is in the scale. I think Apple’s asking you to index / share all of the data from your app. Virtually no user is going to copy & paste every single message into ChatGPT.

And so I think there’s a meaningful difference between the app donating all the data automatically, vs making the data available to the user who is free to share what they want.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#595

Post by rldjbpin »

not much info to personally go with tbh.

for those commenting on relying on a competitor for a "major" component of their product, look no further to how they source their displays from samsung all this time. even their silicon at one point! [1]

while it is now all about harness and "holding it right", their approach seem no different from other instances on hardware side. in terms of why not a more "leading" provider, look how the openai integration panned out so far. moreover, they have little to no initiative nor incentive to provide edge models or a hybrid solution so far. and anthropic's moat is not in audio.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6419506

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#596

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

trollbridge wrote: post #241
tonfa wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The public version of Gemini is ridiculous. At least half their search "answers" are just wrong. That's not Gemini, that's AI Mode (in Search), they're different products built by fairly different part of Google (actually one is built by Deepmind). (I don't think it's much comparable to https://gemini.google.com/app at least in the past you'd get very different results)

And it's extremely poor marketing by Google to do this - the general perception people have is that Google AI is dumb due to this.

To be fair, this is classic Google.

As I keep saying, they should win this AI stuff, but I have complete faith in their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#597

Post by jaredcwhite »

tomhow wrote: post #591
jaredcwhite wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Cool, can you reply to the person's original reply to me in which they made fun of the point I was making—how "disgusting" it is that Apple…allows photo editors in the App Store?

After all, don't be snarky!

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#598

Post by russelldjimmy »

Mallory_Ringess wrote: post #410
russelldjimmy wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why would a reasonable person rely on your statement alone as fact?

Because it would be foolish to just trust them on their statements both given their history as well as given the fact that they're in it for the money and tend to follow the path which brings in more of it.

You answered why one shouldn’t trust their view. But that was not the question. The question was, “why should one trust you?”

Re: Apple reveals new AI architecture built around Google Gemini models

#599

Post by johannes1234321 »

wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #233
johannes1234321 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a hardware company at heart, the do software as software is needed. For building a competitive AI they'd have to hire the talent, which is expensive and then do a massive investment, which may still end up far behind the competition. (See there attempts with Siri) Now they can pick the model they want and if time is right they can still build their own. In the end they still want to sell devices. They aren't…

>> They are a hardware company at heart, the do software as software is needed. This has never been true, not since Steve Jobs returned. The heart of Apple is software and hardware integration. Hardware companies that do software just to prop up the hardware business do terrible software, and (no doubt the Apple haters gonna hate this) but Apple does - for the most part - amazing software. >> which is expensive and t…

> Apple has $145 billion in cash.

This doesn't mean they want to throw it out of the window in a way which reduces their overall margin.

Post reply on HN