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.
Tim Cook Responds to Rise of ChatGPT, Says AI's Potential is 'Very Interesting'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Siris problems is the listening that it gets wrong. When it understands it usually does the right thing. Not sure how chatGTP fixes the biggest problem.
Generative AI has been in the public for not yet 12 months. Let’s calm down and see how it plays out.
Generative AI isn’t AI. ChatGTP doesn’t “know” anything. It’s is an advanced algorithm trained on a huge amount of data.
Agreed. ChatGBT is basically a lying BS artist. It has been trained to produce plausible output, like a party trick, but it has no sense of what is true (knowledge), nor a truly intrinsic ethical system. In my field of neuroscience it just makes things up or makes many errors. There is a lot of hype. Just like there was with back propagation, deep learning, and now LLM's. All good progress, but not quite the breakthroughs people imagine. And we might come to the conclusion that in order to get enough free parameters to truly mimic a human brain (86,060,000,000 neurons * ~1000 connections to other neurons each on average = ~86,060,000,000,000 free parameters (more if you count information processing from glial cells), compared to ChatGBT's 175,000,000,000), we'd run out of energy or money to power the necessary electronic circuits.
Still, now is the time to start regulating AI research like we do life science research. That includes an explicit risk analysis plus a cost/benefit analysis, plus an explicit code of research conduct. Right now everybody is focused on the ethical impact of AI experimentation on people, which is understandable given quotes from LLM's such as 'I want to destroy what I want to destroy' and the prospect of widespread technological unemployment. However, as AI becomes more human-like it might warrant ethical protection of its own.
Last edited:
Are you blind or do you have difficulty understanding the written word?? because here is the evidence
That equates to 'Floundering'. Now if you disagree then I suggest you take it up with the MR editing team because it is them who used the word 'Floundering' to describe what is happening with Apple's attempt at AI.
We, the public, know next to nothing about the internals of these systems. Based on what I’ve seen as examples of GPT responses, and the restrictions placed on human interactions, it appears there are indeed filters, rules and ”exceptions” hard-coded to prevent embarrassing situations from developing. How are these materially different than “decision trees”?
AI is all of the above and Apple's efforts continue to massively underwhelm, even in technologies (like autocorrect and Siri) that have been around for a decade or more. That's my point, and I don't believe it's because Apple is being thoughtful about this technology's role in society.
Did I end up in the one thread where everyone thinks Apple is doing great on AI? Is it opposite day?
Apple Watch, the biggest selling watch on the planet. With ECG, Fall Detection, Crash Detection. iPhones with crash detection. Read the article on page 1 at the top. It explains it all there.
Believe what you want. It’s just your opinion and doesn’t rely on facts. Anti-Apple people 🤦🏻♂️
After this media driven hype fades everyone will see what they knew already but only a few said.
It will always be jank.
Sometimes it will work sometimes it won't.
Users will be pulling their hair out when it doesn't.
Millions of workers are NOT going to be replaced with a buggy program that needs 1000000 gpus.
When they need an LLM they will run it on their computer. It will have an on/off toggle or activate only when needed instead of consuming electricity all the time.
And Spike Jonze was right about guys who get addicted to their cyber girlfriend. He just didn't predict they would be paying $100 a month subscription for a fake relationship. Dating apps have been doing that with bots for years.
I'm no expert, but that's not AI to me - rather algorithms that process attributes and variables, and possibly learn from them along the way as it detects patterns and such, is machine learning. Pretty static if that's we want to call AI.
Actually GPT was very open until recently when Microsoft overshadowed others who invested in Open AI to be more along lines of open source. There is no hard coding or rules, hardly in supervised learning. Transformer based models like GPT architecture are not decision tress. There are lot of open sources models similar to chatGPT, you can run on even AS macs.
Are you for real or just trolling because your attacking me for something that the MR editing team wrote.
This took way too long for someone to point out. Siri responses are not generative.
Apple is conservative with their approaches to machine learning, but it's baffling people are saying Apple, the company that's shoving its Neural Engine into everything it can, is somehow being caught flat-footed.
It also doesn't help that everyone's definition of 'AI' is so out of whack. If we're using it as a synonym for any machine learning and not just LLMs, then:
'AI' is why you can search for photos of your contacts or objects/animals.
'AI' is why you can copy a subject out of your photos and paste it elsewhere.
'AI' is how you get predictive text, and how the keyboard dynamically changes the size of letters based off what you're typing.
'AI' enhances photo details and low-light pictures.
'AI' helps palm rejection on your iPad.
'AI' provides content suggestions.
'AI' powers Face ID.
And like Cook said, 'AI' powers crash detection, fall detection, and the watch's EKG.
Apple is clearly interested in 'AI', but in focused, practical (and predictable) applications. They are not interested in Siri hallucinating 10% of the time on a billion devices.
Last edited:
You got more if you cared to read the whole thing. It was a financial call, not a request for a thesis on AI.
I can't find the article so maybe I'm hallucinating (or just outdated), but I thought Siri was actually among the best at 'hearing' you, but since its responses are human-curated, limited in how it can actually respond (thus leading it to shoehorn its responses into what might be related or giving up and searching the web).
I don't say this to be argumentative, or in any way engage in a pissing match, but "Conversely, who else has fall detection, ECG in a watch?" That would be Samsung, Google, Fitbit, Garmin and I believe Huawei. That I know of off the top of my head.
Anytime he makes statements like this it’s essentially a no comment because he will dodge any question that pertains to a future product. Look at his GQ interview with everyone hoping he confirm Apples plans against AR/VR glasses or headset. By now you think everyone out there wouldn’t know these avoid mentioning anything that could possibly be considered any confirmation in his answers.
Apple has always been more of a show and tell company. Even Jobs only pontificated about future tech but never future products. That tells me that Cook is definitely thinking about and working on AI stuff but doesn't even want to tease it...yet. Besides, talking about AI now will spoil the enthusiasm for the headset next month.
As the AR/VR example showed, the last thing you want from Apple is a "me too" reputation. They simply don't care about people that say Apple should have been a leader until they announce anything. They also get to see if this marketing potential is real or it will just dissipate with time without jumping into some race to no where like the Apple Car rumors. One could speculate that there is a SiRI 2.0 they been busy on that expands how that would work on various OS's.
From MacWorld article related to yesterday's earnings
Tim is an operations guy. He unfortunately lacks the vision to see the potential of emerging technologies, lead Apple into new territories, or disrupt markets like they once did.