Siri could do a lot more and it could do it without AI invading your phone. The issue with Siri is that no one at Apple seems to care about it at all.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Report Details Turmoil Behind Apple's AI Efforts, 'Siri X,' and Headset Voice Controls
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally believe that. Like Apple, Google has a very risk averse CEO who lacks any vision. A product that is not released is nothing. This could be the MS comeback story... whether you think this is a good thing or not.
Just putting it out there, data protection is a illusion and the laws we made for it aren't protecting anyone's data. They mainly hinder our technological advancement and make things and services way more expensive for everyone. Ultimately companies or the government get the data they want and need. It's just more complicated and causes higher costs.Let me play devil’s advocate.
ChatGPT isn’t a product. Yes, the technology behind it is arguably very impressive, but it’s unclear what the go to market for this is, much less how Microsoft intends to monetise it or address its numerous shortcomings. The threat to Apple is also questionable, especially if Apple (and consumers) can simply switch to Bing via Safari. Remember, Microsoft has no smartphone platform left to compete.
And if you want, it’s currently possible to access chatGPT vis siri using a shortcut.
S-GPT 1.0.2 Brings Date and Time Awareness, Integration with macOS Services Menu, Passthrough Mode, Better HomePod Support, and More
I just published version 1.0.2 of S-GPT, the shortcut I released last week to have conversations with OpenAI’s ChatGPT and integrate it directly with native features of Apple’s OSes. You can find the updated download link at the end of this post, in the original article, and in the MacStories...www.macstories.net
And if this isn’t profitable or threatens their existing ad business, it’s likely only a matter of time before google drops Bard.
I think this is where people tend to confuse invention and innovation. For example, it’s one thing to invent the car. It’s another to find a means of mass-producing it for cheap and making it accessible to the masses.
This is where Apple shines - in figuring out go to market, and they do this so much better than anyone else. And if people are leaving Apple because they couldn’t access the user data they wanted, I don’t know about you, but it just makes me want to stick with Apple even more. I will take data protection and a gimped Siri over a fancy AI to chat with any time of the day.
btw. ChatGPT is already accessible to the masses. The courage of OpenAI to release ChatGPT to the public was more innovative than anything Apple and Google have released together in the last 5 years or more.
This is exactly my stance as well.
Hardly courageous. OpenAI needed funding, and making itself publicly available was the easiest and fastest way of quickly gaining a whole bunch of users, while also generating hype and paving the way to either receive a huge investment or being acquired for a large amount of money.
I don't disagree with you, but there are still need for controls, and not every form of technology deserves to freely advance without any sort of roadblock or consideration.
Even as we speak, the EU is in the midst of drafting new legislation, and I suspect there will come a time when openAI will simply elect to not make itself unavailable in the EU, rather than deal with the higher cost of compliance.
A new EU bill aimed at ChatGPT could give creatives more power over their work
Citation needed
RIGHT?
Make you wonder all that "Deep Learning" in the iPhone Pro's A series chips for ProRAW, ProRES and simple tagging of text, language translation and guessing the right folder to move emails really isn't being utilized at all. Moreover for those of us without an iPhone Pro ... not having ProRAW/ProRES even much LESS of the neural engines are being used.
So why the hell wasn't Siri being offloaded for much faster response, local tasks and fetch the cloud for what and WHEN it is needed?! Why the stubbornness at Apple?
Anyone remember how great asking your iPhone 4 what the time was or to play a locally created and save playlist was BEFORE Siri was implemented? Can anyone guess HOW LONG it took Apple to get Siri to look up the time when you had no WiFi nor mobile data connection?! ... anyone?!!!!!! Grrrrrr.
So it's been over 10yrs ... and I'll keep at it as this is VERY relevant to this (Siri being the epitome of a dog with worms dragging its but across the floor)!
1. Forstall brought us Apple Maps:
- to move Apple's iPhone and iPad and MacOS' reliance on Google's Maps as 1 less service fee (not to mention huge data mining of VERY critical and sensitive personal data - where you work, where you eat, the time it takes to get home from work, friends, travelling & sporting events, your children's whereabouts)!
- To grant iOS, iPadOS, and macOS users a much more seamless and integrating mapping solution that can expand.
^ that is just 2 major reasons so many fans of Apple could NOT see (I did) for bringing Apple Maps. All they could see is the huge UI bugs like directions to drive off a bridge (like any fool that would blindly do that should NOT have their license period). Tim Cook not a tech nor an engineer of software, services nor has ANY vision whatsoever only saw HIS own personal issues, along with Craig's fear and arguments of direction with Forstall and maybe a few others and instead placed the ENTIRE BLAME on Forstall.
Think about this:
Forstall whom had the audacity and genius NOT to use an iPod's OS for a smartphone but the kernel and core of macOS for the iPhone, the iPad and guess what .... this allowed UNIFICATION of macOS using Apple Silicon (ARM) and iOS/iPadOS apps on MacOS ALL because of this critical direction!
People forgotten where Forstall came from ... university and CHOSE to go with Jobs' NeXT team then brought on-board to Apple. Craig didn't have the foresight of that, and barely contributed to macOS nor iOS at that time (the direction and lead was from Ave, Bertrand Serlet, Forstall) and a few others. Yes Craig was part of that team but check his employment history ... he LEFT Apple only to come back (that was BEFORE any beef with Forstall btw!
Tim Cook has shown us personal issues and feelings over sound business direction. When you have a team fighting you get them to see counselling and tell them to grow some nuts and maturity to get their job done and behave! Simple!
They are a TEAM, not individuals ... Jobs never lost site of that, and you can see with all the silly 'higher than though' like focus of Craig on past WWDC event openings Apple lost site of this, leading to further quibbling.
Apple's Maps team did what was SUPPOSED to and NEEDED to be DONE:
Get proper vectors from the map data external team and improve maps and add useful features!
Expand its usefulness.
Forstall brought us: iOS & iPadOS, TimeMachine, Apple Maps, Notifications (very robust, more than anything in the industry), pushed for quality iOS apps, and more ... yet Cook pushed HIM out.
Then, check Forstall’s. He ONLY worked at companies where Steve Jobs worked. Did he have the same internal spark and fire that drove other ex-Apple employees to success in other companies? OR, was it just “right place/right time” and, if he hadn’t known Steve Jobs, he would have started his producer path much earlier?
Well He's done incredibly well with his plays on Broadway! I'd say THAT is showing a spark - look him up.
”Apple executives are said to have dismissed proposals to give Siri the ability to conduct extended back-and-forth conversations, claiming that the feature would be difficult to control and gimmicky”
…literally the one feature I’m desperate for
…literally the one feature I’m desperate for
Yeah, but decidedly NOT a spark for technology. Which, for a technology company, is of central importance.
He was just fortunate to be friends with someone that was in technology.
Siri has been same deaf and dumb for too much long time, the problem now is one expect some kind of improvement over time and this doesnt get.
You cant say “ey siri remind me to take my medicine every 8 hours starting at 16 today” what is something very basic a human could need, and making simple appointment get also complicated, when Siri dowsnt hear enough.
Speech dictation works at 70%, in Spanish at least you must check and correct almost all texts after dicating so clear and slow that I sometimes lose the subject and I cant mix English words as I can with Google
You cant say “ey siri remind me to take my medicine every 8 hours starting at 16 today” what is something very basic a human could need, and making simple appointment get also complicated, when Siri dowsnt hear enough.
Speech dictation works at 70%, in Spanish at least you must check and correct almost all texts after dicating so clear and slow that I sometimes lose the subject and I cant mix English words as I can with Google
Last edited:
I agree with Apple executives. That's not a core feature of the device. There are far better options for anyone "desperate" for conversations. That can be an app that you can download. Desperate for Conversation could be a #1 best seller in the app store right next to tinder..
LMAOYeah, but decidedly NOT a spark for technology. Which, for a technology company, is of central importance.
So you're saying Forstall was NOT a spark for technology just he was fortunate within the tech industry for knowing someone within the industry? Did I get you right with my understanding of what you mentioned above?
Conversation isn’t really the ideal. I agree.
What those of us who use Siri would like is more like this:
“Hey, Siri: turn on the fan for 10 minutes.”
“Hey, Siri: turn on the garage lights and turn off the living room AppleTV.”
“Hey, Siri: remind me in two hours to go to the store.”
Basic, sequential or time sensitive commands. None of that is supported at the moment and none of it requires any AI conversation.
Siri (especially in combination with Apple’s Short Cut system) could to SO MUCH MORE, right on the device and without any breaches in privacy or AI concerns. That’s what we want. Creative deployment of Siri to help accomplish simple tasks without having to pick up and interact with the phone.
No, Forstall does not have the passion, that internal spark for technology that drives some folks in the technology business to continue to create influential things in tech long after they’ve left their tech jobs (think Steve Jobs who left Apple and, rather than becoming a Producer, was driven to start another tech company, even pulling some folks from Apple in the process). Steve Jobs likely played the role of keeping Forstall focused on tech (to Steve Jobs’ benefit, of course) but, without someone around to tell him to “your job is to do cool things in tech” Forstall moved on to doing what he really enjoyed all along, what he truly has a passion for.
I wouldn’t doubt that he wonders how much FURTHER along his production path he’d have been if he had been friends with someone that wanted to start a Production company (instead of a tech company).
I am not “desperate” for conversation for Siri, but I would like her to be able to do it. When I ask, what’s the weather is going to be like and Siri just tells me cloudy, I would like to be able to follow up with what is the temperature going to be, or have her ask if I want to know the temperature, as she asks if her suggested store near me is the one that I want and if I want her to call it. In other words, Siri can already do that to an extent, I would like to see that capability broadened. In fact, Apple needs to make Siri the absolute best it can be because its customers deserve it. It doesn’t have to be chat, GPT, but everyone knows that Apple should have made more inroads with Siri and not just the occasional change to It’s voice. Apple has simply ignored Siri, but it can no longer do so.
The what if game is pointless. For all we know he was so soured by Apple that the idea of getting involved with tech again was repugnant to him. It happens. People abandon their previous careers based on negative experiences all that time. Jobs? He stated NeXT out of spite and revenge, not a drive to innovate per se.
I rest my case re. the existential threat that AI presents when it becomes a toy for children, and for adults with limited situational awareness:
www.bbc.com
People need to grow up, get educated and get serious about the necessity of distinguishing truth from lies.
AI 'godfather' Geoffrey Hinton warns of dangers as he quits Google
Artificial intelligence pioneer Geoffrey Hinton quits Google, saying he now regrets his work.
www.bbc.com
People need to grow up, get educated and get serious about the necessity of distinguishing truth from lies.
Last edited:
You are missing one very important point.
The out-of-the-box skills you see from GPT are the standard skills, with it relying solely on its "memory".
When you pair it up with a specialized tool, the accuracy and usefulness skyrockets dramatically.
So, is GPT weak at math? No problem, pair it up with Wolfram.
Does it make up laws? No problem, force it to read from a legal corpus.
Is it an average chess player? Yes, but connect it to a chess engine and it will suddenly "know" everything and explain it in natural language.
Even GPT-3, which is nearly useless on its own compared to 3.5 or 4, can get quite powerful if you fine-tune it. However, it'll also require more hand holding to achieve decent results.
This makes language models terrifyingly versatile.
AI is a service, not hardware. So you don't "replace AirPods with AI."
BUT... someone would definitely replace AirPods with earphones that ARE integrated with powerful AI, especially if it's useful.
Right now, a scenario I could see Apple getting behind is precisely where they used to be the top dog: image editing.
Why would I use an Apple device to, e.g, manually select a person to remove it from a background, when I can use an AI-powered tool integrated in an operating system (either through software only or through a special chip), and have it only take 1-2 minutes?
Why would I bother with manually typing commands on the command prompt if the command prompt starts to understand natural language, such as "please delete file text.txt from folder abc?"
And yes, before you ask, that IS real. Microsoft is integrating this feature into Windows, and it is also already a reality on Linux, although a bit wonky.
So yeah, Apple is starting to look outdated, and they should open their eyes. I'm saying that because I do like Apple, but they are resting on their laurels.
Last edited:
My observation is that people simply don’t think or work that way. They are not going to be dictating long and complicated commands to their computers, especially in public.
For example, when I use dictation to craft a message, it requires me to first think through the entire sentence before speaking it out, but I find that I typically form a sentence in chunks, so it often gets awkward when I dictate like one part of a statement and then go “ah crap, what’s the next part I wanted to say?”
You are assuming that access to all this data will remain freely accessible for any company with a LLM product to freely vacuum up as they deem fit.
I suspect it’s only a matter of time before we start seeing a backlash to this, and probably sooner than later.
OpenAI gives in to Italy’s data privacy demands, ending ChatGPT ban
Italy requested a PSA showing users how to opt out of ChatGPT data sharing.
arstechnica.com
Imagine if, instead of users having to opt out, the status quo was turned such that these companies now need to seek express approval from individual users before being allowed to access their data.
Kinda like Apple’s ATT prompt that has similarly devastated Facebook’s profitability…
Are you suggesting that a user who loads content for AI processing should compensate the creator of that data every time it happens? First, let's remember that the original argument was about the usefulness of AI systems, not compensation, which is a separate matter.
The second issue is that requiring users to pay creators each time data were loaded into an AI would create a cascade of costs. This would make not only AI content processing prohibitively expensive, but would also cause all sorts of negative impacts to context remixing, even what is considered today under "fair use".
Also, when you consider connecting GPT-4 to external data, it's like adding a PDF or book to a database or using a search engine to find info on different websites. We do this all the time without needing to pay for the data we access. Most of these resources are free or offered under specific licenses that let us use them without any cost.
Now, picture how expensive it would be if we had to pay each time we added third-party data to a database or accessed external resources. This would make the whole process financially impractical.
As it stands, plenty of databases and resources are designed to be shared so we can maximize their use without going broke. The people behind these resources generally prioritize spreading knowledge, collaboration, and helping the wider community over making a quick buck.
So, when GPT connects to specialized tools or data sources, it's just utilizing what's already out there to improve its performance and provide more accurate and valuable information. This is pretty standard in the AI world, and it doesn't imply that the people providing the data should get paid. If we started charging for it, we'd likely slow down innovation and limit access to valuable information, which goes against the goals of most creators and maintainers of these resources.
Last edited:
As AI systems get smarter, they need way less data.
For example, suppose you wanted to make GPT-3 to act like Socrates. You'd need to feed it hundreds of pages to its fine-tuning process to make it understand Socrates' behavior. But with GPT-4, you might only need 3-4 pages and a few explanations. It might not be a perfect imitation, but it'd be good enough to fool a bunch of people.
Future AI iterations will probably need even less help, maybe just a prompt like, "pretend you are Socrates."
This idea goes for learning new skills too. Instead of needing thousands of videos, future AI might just need 1-2 videos to learn how to draw or dance. Good luck trying to stop AI from checking out all videos on the Internet to learn a skill; you'd have to stop humans from doing that too.
And don't forget, the material that's already out there will probably still be used for training. As AI systems get smarter and work more efficiently, they'll learn from fewer resources. There is no going back from that.