Report Details Turmoil Behind Apple's AI Efforts, 'Siri X,' and Headset Voice Controls

[rehkram]

I suspect it’s only a matter of time before we start seeing a backlash to this, and probably sooner than later.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that miraculous transcendence from "make money, no rules, no friction" to "items stated as truths must be verified because some people will believe absolutely anything that drops unsolicited in front of them and we would quickly eff-up the entire planet. We would lose money but hey"

Jeesh, how fricken' naiive we have become as a species. I'm not including myself in that statement.

~Veritas Omnia Vincet, eventually~

 

[Joe Dohn]

I won't hold my breath waiting for that miraculous transcendence from "make money, no rules, no friction" to "items stated as truths must be verified because some people will believe absolutely anything that drops unsolicited in front of them and we would quickly eff-up the entire planet. We would lose money but hey"

Jeesh, how fricken' naiive we have become as a species. I'm not including myself in that statement.

~Veritas Omnia Vincet~

AI is a natural consequence of capitalism collapsing under its own weight.
For hundreds of years, people have sought for something that never complains, always obeys, and works for free.
AIs do all that, and better than humans. Unfortunately, we can't achieve the "perfectly free" part, but "almost free" is close enough.

But there is a fundamental problem: our economic system is made by humans, for humans.
And if no one works, who will buy the merch that is produced for nearly free?
We can solve this issue with UBI, but then capitalism as we know it ends.
Or we can ban AI altogether, and have capitalism become an obstacle to progress.

But trying to ban AI now is impossible for several reasons, the main one being that the cat is out of the bag. You can now run an Alpaca model in your home, with a modestly powerful computer.

We shouldn't forget as well that capitalism's hunger for ever-larger, short-term profits is what brought us here in the first place. It's what is making products decay in quality, and is killing innovation because hey, innovation is costly!

After all, why bother innovating when you can rehash the same product over and over?

 

[lysingur]

AI is a natural consequence of capitalism collapsing under its own weight.
For hundreds of years, people have sought for something that never complains, always obeys, and works for free.
AIs do all that, and better than humans. Unfortunately, we can't achieve the "perfectly free" part, but "almost free" is close enough.

But there is a fundamental problem: our economic system is made by humans, for humans.
And if no one works, who will buy the merch that is produced for nearly free?
We can solve this issue with UBI, but then capitalism as we know it ends.
Or we can ban AI altogether, and have capitalism become an obstacle to progress.

But trying to ban AI now is impossible for several reasons, the main one being that the cat is out of the bag. You can now run an Alpaca model in your home, with a modestly powerful computer.

We shouldn't forget as well that capitalism's hunger for ever-larger, short-term profits is what brought us here in the first place. It's what is making products decay in quality, and is killing innovation because hey, innovation is costly!

After all, why bother innovating when you can rehash the same product over and over?

The development of AI really has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with power and control. And the thirst for power and control is not unique to capitalism. That's your mistake #1.

There will always be someone working as long as people desire power and control. People desire power and control out of the fundamental fear of uncertainty. We have this fundamental fear because we're extremely fragile compared to things that can kill us. We have little to no natural defence, e.g., fangs, claws, venom, camouflage, mimicry, wings, powerful bite, great leaping ability, etc, we can get sick fairly quickly in nature without clothing or shelter. So that's your mistake #2.

Capitalism is actually the greatest driver for innovation humans have ever invented. The reason you think capitalism is killing innovation is that in the West, capitalism is already at its twilight stage where monopolies are ubiquitous. Mistake #3.

Mistake #4: We have always been rehashing stuff. True innovation is extremely difficult. Was iPhone an innovation? Some people are still debating whether Jobs should get the credit for the iPhone or the engineers behind each individual technology that the iPhone made use of. You feel the phenomenon of rehashing/imitating/copying is on the uptick to the point of prevalence because the internet allows you to peruse hundreds of years of manmade music in one afternoon.

So, don't worry, UBI, if ever implemented, won't stop the wheel of human ingenuity because there will always be a portion of the population that desire power and control (some philosophers call that desire thumos). Likewise, there will always be a portion of the population who are lethargic and low energy and will give you a thousand excuses why they can't hold down a job before lifting a finger. With the income gap looking to increase exponentially with the advent of AI, UBI is probably a good thing. It will placate the latter so they don't turn half of your city into a warzone.

 

[Joe Dohn]

The development of AI really has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with power and control. And the thirst for power and control is not unique to capitalism. That's your mistake #1.

So you think a system that pushes for ever-cheaper and higher production to achieve higher profits doesn't have anything to do with automation and AI? That it doesn't influence this type of research and our economic organization at all?

Why don't you go ahead and give us an explanation on why that's mistake #1, and how capitalism is completely unrelated to AI innovation? Let's just focus on point #1 for now, because all the points give room for a very complex discussion.

 

[lysingur]

So you think a system that pushes for ever-cheaper and higher production to achieve higher profits doesn't have anything to do with automation and AI? That it doesn't influence this type of research and our economic organization at all?

Why don't you go ahead and give us an explanation on why that's mistake #1, and how capitalism is completely unrelated to AI innovation? Let's just focus on point #1 for now, because all the points give room for a very complex discussion.

China.

And before you start saying the Chinese aren't communists and that "ever-cheaper and higher production to achieve higher profits" are exactly what they're after. Take a closer look at which areas of AI they're doing R&D on.

The entire Chinese bureaucratic apparatus is behind their AI research and a large chunk of it is on military technology, e.g., cyberespionage, precision weapons, and battlefield decision-making. Nothing to do with "capitalism," i.e., making money. Everything to do with power and control.

You are really not qualified to have such a strong opinion on AI if this is all news to you.

 

[Joe Dohn]

China.

And before you start saying the Chinese aren't communists and that "ever-cheaper and higher production to achieve higher profits" are exactly what they're after. Take a closer look at which areas of AI they're doing R&D on.

The entire Chinese bureaucratic apparatus is behind their AI research and a large chunk of it is on military technology, e.g., cyberespionage, precision weapons, and battlefield decision-making. Nothing to do with "capitalism," i.e., making money. Everything to do with power and control.

You are really not qualified to have such a strong opinion on AI if this is all news to you.

I was expecting more from your answer.

You derail the conversation to "China," in an attempt to shift the blame from capitalism, as if it were perfect. But China is a communist system in name only. Their economy is an example of mixed state capitalism. In a perfect communist system, all the profit is by the state, for the state. The profit is then redistributed to the masses.

Of course, we aren't as naïve to think the profit is perfectly distributed to the masses even in a communist system (e.g., North Korea). But even if we were to account for that, citizens in China are allowed to accumulate wealth; they can even ascend to high social status, as the Chinese do have a bourgeiois elite.

In fact, a contradiction in your argument is that you claim that China is aiming for an AI that does more for less. In a true communist society, it is irrelevant if they do more with less, because they aren't aiming for profit like in a capitalistic society. The only explanation to go for profit maximization is if profit is key to your society.

I would argue that even though China is a communistic society in name only, they are not striving so hard for an AI because they are about control. They want to have control over their citizens, and they don't think the AI is safe enough for them.

But never mind all that; another reason your answer isn't good is that it deflects the blame from capitalism to maximize profits at the expense of all else. It's boiling down to "look, this other economic system does it too!" But that would be similar to a thief claiming they are innocent because everyone is stealing.

 

[lysingur]

But never mind all that; another reason your answer isn't good is that it deflects the blame from capitalism to maximize profits at the expense of all else. It's boiling down to "look, this other economic system does it too!" But that would be similar to a thief claiming they are innocent because everyone is stealing.

Okay, you win. 😆😆😆

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

BUT... someone would definitely replace AirPods with earphones that ARE integrated with powerful AI, especially if it's useful.

OK, but what if I just want headphones that are going to play my music, the music I want them to play, when I want them to play it, and how I want them to play it, when I tell it to play it?
Oh wait, that exists, it’s called AirPods and tapping the song or album you want to listen to.

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?"

or you can just… You know… Drag and drop your file to the trash bin, click it and press command delete, plenty of other options too. I don’t need Siri to delete my files when I can do it myself. That’s not anything new or useful, that’s just called being lazy.
I cannot believe we are literally discussing Apple being outdated… Because you can’t use AI to delete files. Really? Is this where we’re at?

 

[Joe Dohn]

OK, but what if I just want headphones that are going to play my music, the music I want them to play, when I want them to play it, and how I want them to play it, when I tell it to play it?
Oh wait, that exists, it’s called AirPods and tapping the song or album you want to listen to.

But there are thousands of options that offer the same or better features that Airpods do. AI offers a clear edge.

or you can just… You know… Drag and drop your file to the trash bin, click it and press command delete, plenty of other options too. I don’t need Siri to delete my files when I can do it myself. That’s not anything new or useful, that’s just called being lazy.
I cannot believe we are literally discussing Apple being outdated… Because you can’t use AI to delete files. Really? Is this where we’re at?

Because naturally, the AI is a swiss knife. It's as powerful as your imagination is. Yes, you can use it "only" to delete files, but you also can ask it to sort your conversations and compile a 6-month list of which clients owe you what. Or generate data trends. Or give suggestions on how to improve your communication.

Or you could ask it to delete all mp3 files in your entire PC that start with the letter "a". All that with just a simple conversation, instead of you needing to know programming to write a very convoluted program or script.

If you can't see value in that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

But there are thousands of options that offer the same or better features that Airpods do. AI offers a clear edge.



Because naturally, the AI is a swiss knife. It's as powerful as your imagination is. Yes, you can use it "only" to delete files, but you also can ask it to sort your conversations and compile a 6-month list of which clients owe you what. Or generate data trends. Or give suggestions on how to improve your communication.

Or you could ask it to delete all mp3 files in your entire PC that start with the letter "a". All that with just a simple conversation, instead of you needing to know programming to write a very convoluted program or script.

If you can't see value in that, I don't know what to tell you.

I’m not saying that AI doesn’t have its place, or its uses.
But nothing you’ve listed here is putting apple out of business, sorry to say.
You’re just listing capabilities, but not saying what they’re useful for.
“Delete all of the MP3 files starting with the letter “A”… why? Because you can? That’s not a reason something should exist.

 

[Joe Dohn]

You’re just listing capabilities, but not saying what they’re useful for.
“Delete all of the MP3 files starting with the letter “A”… why? Because you can? That’s not a reason something should exist.

I just told you: having a computer speaking to you with human language instead of you having to learn a programming language is IMMENSELY valuable. Why do you think OpenAI is worth $30 billion?

I gave you an arbitrary example to illustrate how an AI can be flexible as your assistant. But really, you can make ANYTHING with it. With some effort (and lots of fine-tuning, at least currently), you could even ask it to create tailor-made programs for you.

You could e.g, create your own video editor that fits your EXACT workflow, or scaled-down software that fits your exact hardware configuration.

Naturally, if your imagination is limited, your output will be limited too.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

I just told you: having a computer speaking to you with human language instead of you having to learn a programming language is IMMENSELY valuable. Why do you think OpenAI is worth $30 billion?

I gave you an arbitrary example to illustrate how an AI can be flexible as your assistant. But really, you can make ANYTHING with it. With some effort (and lots of fine-tuning, at least currently), you could even ask it to create tailor-made programs for you.

You could e.g, create your own video editor that fits your EXACT workflow, or scaled-down software that fits your exact hardware configuration.

Naturally, if your imagination is limited, your output will be limited too.

It’s not that my imagination is limited, it’s that… All of this already exists.
Nothing here is new, nothing here isn’t something a Mac hasn’t been able to do for decades.
A simple video editor… That’s iMovie.
you haven’t been able to convince me of one thing (that isn’t shrouded in tons of security and privacy concerns) That’s making Apple’s software look outdated right now.

 

[Surf Monkey]

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.

So you advocate theft of others creative output. That isn’t a defensible position.

 

[Joe Dohn]

It’s not that my imagination is limited, it’s that… All of this already exists.

So you're saying software that analyses your emails and tells you who owes you what, parsing natural language, already exists?

Which solution is that that doesn't use natural language parsing / artificial intelligence? Please tell me more about it.

 

[George Dawes]

If AI follows the ‘success’ of Siri I doubt mankind has much to be scared of

 

[Surf Monkey]

But there are thousands of options that offer the same or better features that Airpods do. AI offers a clear edge.



Because naturally, the AI is a swiss knife. It's as powerful as your imagination is. Yes, you can use it "only" to delete files, but you also can ask it to sort your conversations and compile a 6-month list of which clients owe you what. Or generate data trends. Or give suggestions on how to improve your communication.

Or you could ask it to delete all mp3 files in your entire PC that start with the letter "a". All that with just a simple conversation, instead of you needing to know programming to write a very convoluted program or script.

If you can't see value in that, I don't know what to tell you.

Looks more like you projecting your hopes and dreams than anything to do with actual reality.

 

[Joe Dohn]

So you advocate theft of others creative output. That isn’t a defensible position.

It looks like you might've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm definitely not advocating for stealing other people's creative work. My main point was just to discuss the practical side of things - like what might happen if we had to pay creators every single time their data gets used in AI processing.

Creators absolutely deserve fair compensation for their work, no doubt about that. But right now, we're talking about how AI systems that use data that's already free or provided under certain licenses. These licenses usually let people use the content without having to pay directly. That's not theft; it's just following the rules set up by the creators themselves.

It's super important to separate situations where data is meant to be shared freely (or with some conditions) from times when creative work gets used without permission or payment.

It kinda seems like you're creating a straw man here, making it sound like I'm saying something I'm not and then attacking that made-up version. By saying I'm pro-theft, you're steering the conversation away from the points I was making.

Remember, the original discussion was about how useful AI systems are, and I was just trying to give some context about how making people pay every time they use data could slow down innovation and limit access to important info. Let's try to keep the conversation focused on that, instead of jumping to conclusions about advocating theft.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Looks more like you projecting your hopes and dreams than anything to do with actual reality.

Tell us more about what the "actual reality" is.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Tell us more about what the "actual reality" is.

See, that kind of quip doesn’t actually advance your argument.

Your assumption that these systems will have unfettered access to data is wrong. Someone will have to be compensated for the data used to train these systems. The fact that you can’t seem to grasp this is a massive hole in your argument.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

So you're saying software that analyses your emails and tells you who owes you what, parsing natural language, already exists?

why would I want this? What would be the purpose for me?
If I owe someone something, I already know that, because I am a responsible adult.
Also, the last thing I want is some AI scanning my emails and piling all of my private businesson top of everyone else’s. No thank you.

 

[Surf Monkey]

It looks like you might've misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm definitely not advocating for stealing other people's creative work. My main point was just to discuss the practical side of things - like what might happen if we had to pay creators every single time their data gets used in AI processing.

Creators absolutely deserve fair compensation for their work, no doubt about that. But right now, we're talking about how AI systems that use data that's already free or provided under certain licenses. These licenses usually let people use the content without having to pay directly. That's not theft; it's just following the rules set up by the creators themselves.

It's super important to separate situations where data is meant to be shared freely (or with some conditions) from times when creative work gets used without permission or payment.

It kinda seems like you're creating a straw man here, making it sound like I'm saying something I'm not and then attacking that made-up version. By saying I'm pro-theft, you're steering the conversation away from the points I was making.

Remember, the original discussion was about how useful AI systems are, and I was just trying to give some context about how making people pay every time they use data could slow down innovation and limit access to important info. Let's try to keep the conversation focused on that, instead of jumping to conclusions about advocating theft.

Actually, your post is the straw man since you’re “rebutting” points I never actually made.

 

[Surf Monkey]

why would I want this? What would be the purpose for me?
If I owe someone something, I already know that, because I am a responsible adult.
Also, the last thing I want is some AI scanning my emails and piling all of my private businesson top of everyone else’s. No thank you.

Exactly.

 

[Joe Dohn]

why would I want this? What would be the purpose for me?
If I owe someone something, I already know that, because I am a responsible adult.
Also, the last thing I want is some AI scanning my emails and piling all of my private businesson top of everyone else’s. No thank you.

Email providers (e.g, Google) already do that.

 

[Joe Dohn]

See, that kind of quip doesn’t actually advance your argument.

Your assumption that these systems will have unfettered access to data is wrong. Someone will have to be compensated for the data used to train these systems. The fact that you can’t seem to grasp this is a massive hole in your argument.

I might not have been super clear in my previous message. I totally agree that creators should get paid fairly for their work.

What I was trying to say is that generative AI systems often use data that's either free or comes with certain licenses. These licenses sometimes let people use the content without having to pay up front. It doesn't mean no one's getting paid, but it's just that the way they're paid might be different than what you're thinking.

AI systems use a whole bunch of different data types and sources. Some creators might ask for payment, while others might be cool with sharing their stuff for free or under some conditions. It's not all black and white.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Tell us more about what the "actual reality" is.

The actual reality is that Apple is going to continue to bring in billions and billions of dollars every year for the foreseeable future, even if they stay away from AI the same way they’ve stayed away from RCS or Nvidia.
At the moment, AI is not replacing AirPods. It’s not replacing Apple watches. It’s not replacing iMessage. It’s not replacing TV+, or Apple Music, or literally any other area where Apple generates revenue.