There are but if you use those services at all then you’re part of the problem no?
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: 'We Don't Buy' the Need to Give Up Privacy for AI
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, he is not. That's why Siri is second or third fiddle and always will be.
Completely understand.
BUT, what if those things your phone does and the things your laptop does get done faster and easier.
I like how Google Now curates my news reading choices and gives me a Flipboard / Pulse like experience just for me, on the fly, as my search habits change. I like how I can say, "Okay Google, remember ...." say a bike lock combination or something in my head while driving my car. No typing into the phone anything. Easier, and easier and easier. More time to do other things. Less time to do the things you need.
A lot would be helped by creating contextual areas in order to create a natural "discussion" between an AI and a human being:
- including location
- time references
- subject and object references.
People do know how to use the language and the English language has a pretty straightfoward grammatical construction. Having set the subject and object, the only thing to do is to reference it with pronouns (in some languages there is a need for a dictionary reference, as to the gender of the noun, e.g. in German / Italian / French).
This alone would make it a lot easier to interact with Siri. And since these have relatively fixed positions in sentences (in German, French and Italian too), this shouldn't be too difficult.
Despite the fact that they are announced as additional information by the use of prepositions.
The next step would be to use language advance recognition: What is being said and does it have a relevance towards what has been said already. I.e. the semantic fields could light up (just as they do in the brain) and the AI could search within a limited semantic field the correct words that the user might use. E.g. talking about football, the word "soccer" might come up, Siri has to go through an entire list of words which sound like "socca" - in a limited semantic field, the search would be a lot quicker, if the context had been pre-established.
Of course, "reset semantic field" might be necessary if you change the topic. AIs are so terribly bad these days, although it would be so much easier if the most simple rules would be established and the data is here. Semantic fields do exist, they only need to be coded within a phonetic frame. This is not just about bad microphones this is about narrowing the complexities of language to make it easier to process - the brain does nothing else.
- including location
- time references
- subject and object references.
People do know how to use the language and the English language has a pretty straightfoward grammatical construction. Having set the subject and object, the only thing to do is to reference it with pronouns (in some languages there is a need for a dictionary reference, as to the gender of the noun, e.g. in German / Italian / French).
This alone would make it a lot easier to interact with Siri. And since these have relatively fixed positions in sentences (in German, French and Italian too), this shouldn't be too difficult.
Despite the fact that they are announced as additional information by the use of prepositions.
The next step would be to use language advance recognition: What is being said and does it have a relevance towards what has been said already. I.e. the semantic fields could light up (just as they do in the brain) and the AI could search within a limited semantic field the correct words that the user might use. E.g. talking about football, the word "soccer" might come up, Siri has to go through an entire list of words which sound like "socca" - in a limited semantic field, the search would be a lot quicker, if the context had been pre-established.
Of course, "reset semantic field" might be necessary if you change the topic. AIs are so terribly bad these days, although it would be so much easier if the most simple rules would be established and the data is here. Semantic fields do exist, they only need to be coded within a phonetic frame. This is not just about bad microphones this is about narrowing the complexities of language to make it easier to process - the brain does nothing else.
the most recent DDos attack would counter your statement. Apple has done EXACTLY the right thing - focus on security and require any manufacture of home automation to include security chips and end to end encryption. Manufacturers were slow to implement and they complained about Apple and in the end Apple was proven correct. What we call AI is in its infancy - there is not a system out there that is widely used and none are truly AI. Apple is thoughtfully designing its AI and I'm sure will blow it out when they feel they have it nailed.
Agreed 100%. How does one solv
The way I see it, people that complain most about privacy don't understand what privacy means... oh that picture when i was shіt faced all over facebook, only my friends will see that, not my future employer since we're not fb friends!
If you don't know what a corpus or differential privacy is then you might want to reconsider your stance.
The reduction in accuracy when using differential privacy in conjunction with deep learning is not substantial enough to make a noticeable difference at the consumer level in your average use cases. Using differential privacy results in a model offering substantially better privacy far outweighing any slight gain in accuracy.
It's also worth noting that this is the current state of differential privacy and that future models using differential privacy combined with faster performing hardware will be so good that the loss in accuracy will be a non-issue.
Any company trying to convince you otherwise is simply trying to convince you to give up your privacy.
To give you an example. Google recently released Allo, a new messaging app/personal assistant. When Allo was pre-announced, Google promised not to store conversations by default, a key privacy feature. Google back-tracked on their promise to help feed their ML algorithms that power its AI agents, ad services etc.
Surely Google knew how Allo would perform without access to these conversations prior to promising privacy. Either way it stinks. They either knew Allo would perform poorly and completely lied to get users or they made a promise without knowing how Allo would perform and didn't care about possibly needing to backtrack on their promise.
These are the type of companies that don't like using differential privacy.
The reduction in accuracy when using differential privacy in conjunction with deep learning is not substantial enough to make a noticeable difference at the consumer level in your average use cases. Using differential privacy results in a model offering substantially better privacy far outweighing any slight gain in accuracy.
It's also worth noting that this is the current state of differential privacy and that future models using differential privacy combined with faster performing hardware will be so good that the loss in accuracy will be a non-issue.
Any company trying to convince you otherwise is simply trying to convince you to give up your privacy.
To give you an example. Google recently released Allo, a new messaging app/personal assistant. When Allo was pre-announced, Google promised not to store conversations by default, a key privacy feature. Google back-tracked on their promise to help feed their ML algorithms that power its AI agents, ad services etc.
Surely Google knew how Allo would perform without access to these conversations prior to promising privacy. Either way it stinks. They either knew Allo would perform poorly and completely lied to get users or they made a promise without knowing how Allo would perform and didn't care about possibly needing to backtrack on their promise.
These are the type of companies that don't like using differential privacy.
Good to know but support is entirely different from actual use and app support. Saying that Google Maps supports the entire Earth is too much hyperbole for me. I stopped using it in the U.S for cross country trips because I found it too unreliable and the app too buggy.
yes, and Google, by far, is a much better service provider then Apple.
Realize that its computer algorithms that "read" the emails you choose to send over their FREE service, scanning for metadata and keywords. No HUMAN being at Google has ever read your emails, its simply grabbing maybe 5% of the information in your emails to guide its advertising to show you ads you might actually be interested in, rather the content that you will simply ignore and be annoyed with. But at the end of the day this is just the cost of wanting to use these services and expect them to actually be good. You are not forced to, but most people appreciate the quality and ease of use of these services and the features that we are not fully aware of they provide.
If I send an email to a friend about wanting to buy a new car, I get more car ads. Google scanned BUY and CAR from my email. Wow, that is hardly a complete invasion of my privacy and I actually would prefer more car ads then adds about feminine hygiene products or some other inane ad campaign that has nothing to do with what I am interested in at that time.
On the other hand, I make the same requests to Siri on a daily basis, and most of the times it doesn't respond consistently with the right information. If Apple embraces a little more machine learning and gathered some anonymous usage details, and adapt to my usage patterns, then maybe Siri wouldn't come off as an idiot that just doesn't pay attention and is mostly annoying to use. I mean at the end of the day if you dated someone that just didn't listen or offer anything new or important to the conversation you wouldn't stick around with them for very long, so why do I want to support a company that refuses to improve the quality of a service out of some arrogant spite?
I fully agree that the information that is gathered needs to be 100% visible by the user of any service and so a consumers have greater control and full disclosure about whether to use that service or not. I think if more people saw how benign the information gathered is they would be less fearful about the unknown realities of these usage statistics; however what Apple wants us to do is use a service that doesn't learn, adapt or improve over time and expect us to applaud them for drawing a line in the sand based purely on consumer FUD and not offering a service that meets realistic consumer expectations.
So sure, if you like asking Siri questions that are not answered correctly unless you ask it 3 or 4 times, give up, and then go to Google anyways to search for it manually, by all means support that company, but honestly I prefer that technology improves over time and if they gather a little bit of metadata about me to improve those services then that is what is needed by a company ready to offer innovative services for the future, which Apple is not.
Wikileaks today
So how much of the Apple privacy stance is marketing when they are talking with political people privately like that?
lisa_jackson@apple.com said:
So how much of the Apple privacy stance is marketing when they are talking with political people privately like that?
LOL, exactly my point: More time to do other things, NOT! (At least when one gets older)
I am rarely inconvenienced by what I do.
As a creature of habit, I read the same newspapers, follow the same things and have started cutting out things. So, no need for any voice to tell me what is next.
I decided long time ago not to learn anything, except to learn where I can find the info
should I need it. And that has become supereasy with the internet.
I am even contemplating to no longer read news.
All unimportant for my life. (And, probably 99% of people, yet they care to know)
We live in a totally oversaturated information rage where the media sells us and puts one faction against another, causes $**storms for free opinions, tells us we are free, but not so free that we don't have to be politically correct.
When things calm down they start that cycle again and people keep taking the bait.
On to new MBPs. Hope we don't get disappointed.
No one should put its trust in corporation to keep their data safe, not Apple, not Google, no one...
Start by securing your data on your own and on your side. If a device doesn't let you use it without breaking your privacy then you shouldn't use it. Civilisation has lived for millenium without email and "smart" phone, you can too. In fact most of our greater achievement in history were before the advent of computers.
When I use a connected device, I'm in no illusion that it is secured and that my privacy will be kept.
Start by securing your data on your own and on your side. If a device doesn't let you use it without breaking your privacy then you shouldn't use it. Civilisation has lived for millenium without email and "smart" phone, you can too. In fact most of our greater achievement in history were before the advent of computers.
When I use a connected device, I'm in no illusion that it is secured and that my privacy will be kept.
This.
I think Apple is failing big time to see what the future brings in this regard. A few years down the line things like keyboards - be it virtual on your phone or physical on your computer - will likely only be used by old timers.
The need for actually entering text using your fingers on a regular basis will be largely gone for most users. The need for AI to know a bit about you will be key here to make it flow effortlessly.
Making Siri stand at the back of the line like a glorified voice activated search engine that offers no more than basic tasks is a very bad move.
I would have to strongly disagree with you on that, as would the majority of /r/Android over on Reddit. As for the rest, I really don't care that it's not a human, I care that the company as a whole is taking my data and information about me that is increasingly personally identifiable and using it to make money. I am not comfortable with that, I do not want to support it and I do my best to make sure that I'm not tracked without sacrificing too much in the way of convenience and the quality of services. I get that for some of you this is great and you're all about it, but I still fail to understand or see why I should be forced to lose my freedom of choice. That's really all I've been saying in this thread - that I appreciate that Apple is giving me the choice that Google does not.
What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Apple cooperating with law enforcement for legal reasons =/= taking a stance on what information they gather and build a profile with in regards to their users and AI.
To have as good of AI as Google, you will need to give up privacy. Whenever I compare a Google service to Apple's, Google always comes out on top, generally by a big margin.
The real questions are:
1. Can Apple be "good enough" for the general population while protecting privacy?
2. How much privacy is the general population willing to lose?
Unfortunately for Apple, I don't think either of these questions leans in the right direction for them right now. I hope both of these change over time.
For my personal use, I prefer to use Apple hardware and OS along with Google services that I pick and choose. For example, I prefer using Google Photos to Apples because of the search and storage. I use Google Maps because Apple Maps continues to cause me issues every time I try to switch over. However, I use iCloud email, contacts, and calendars. I do that for the privacy despite the fact that periodically my calendar items and contacts don't sync.
The real questions are:
1. Can Apple be "good enough" for the general population while protecting privacy?
2. How much privacy is the general population willing to lose?
Unfortunately for Apple, I don't think either of these questions leans in the right direction for them right now. I hope both of these change over time.
For my personal use, I prefer to use Apple hardware and OS along with Google services that I pick and choose. For example, I prefer using Google Photos to Apples because of the search and storage. I use Google Maps because Apple Maps continues to cause me issues every time I try to switch over. However, I use iCloud email, contacts, and calendars. I do that for the privacy despite the fact that periodically my calendar items and contacts don't sync.
Your qualifications in AI and deep learning are ????
It was believed that Astronauts who went into space would not be able to eat because of the lack of gravity, this was believed by the science at the time as fact. Time proved them wrong.
Apples approach may be harder, but over all I suspect it will be easier to achieve than the job of getting our privacy back
a big margin? really ? this video begs to differ
when i send an email to someone it should be end to end encrypted - from my computer to theirs. Nothing inbetween. if google is "reading" it, that means google is un-encrypting it and then sending it out. The processor in my iPhone is more than capable of going thru my emails and picking out relevant data (flights, meetings, photographs...). I have no use for googl's servers searching thru my emails to try to find things to advertise to me. That provides 0 benefit to me. Apple has spent a ton of time on security with SIRI and home automation - as i've stated before the recent DDos attack, which used internet devices, has proven Apple 100% correct in their approach! The last thing in the world i'd want is my home security camera to be hacked.
Not just that, but they can actually design the infrastructure so that it only transmits the data that it needs. You can still build a neural network even without having detailed personal information about a subject. The fact that Apple makes this consideration and does both, and explains them in their privacy policy, is what distinguishes Apple from Google.
Of course they collect data. It's also anonymized. Don't you know how data works. You don't need to know who someone is to make their Siri data useful to a machine learning algo. This isn't hard to understand.
The more I think about it, the more I can't see how AI and anything like this can get better without you losing personal privacy.
Think of your wife.
She's helpful, she can tell you when someones birthday is, where you are going on holiday, suggest what she thinks you might like to see on TV etc etc.
the only reason she, or anyone you know, can be that useful is because they know about you. they know a lot about you, they need to know a lot in order to help,
Imagine being totally secret, walking up to a stranger who you have never given any personal info to and asking in depth questions, they won't know as they won't have prior or current info about you to work with.
Let's take it a LOT further, way way further.
Would you have a Commander Data or would you run away as he could see your location, know about you and be linked into details about you, and also linked into higher up computing/clouds to pull data and help.
I mean Jesus, people get paranoid about a mic in their home that turns on with a keyword "Alexa"
People were even more paranoid about Kinnect as it may be spying on me!
God knows if we every get AI androids with eyes and ears!
Think of your wife.
She's helpful, she can tell you when someones birthday is, where you are going on holiday, suggest what she thinks you might like to see on TV etc etc.
the only reason she, or anyone you know, can be that useful is because they know about you. they know a lot about you, they need to know a lot in order to help,
Imagine being totally secret, walking up to a stranger who you have never given any personal info to and asking in depth questions, they won't know as they won't have prior or current info about you to work with.
Let's take it a LOT further, way way further.
Would you have a Commander Data or would you run away as he could see your location, know about you and be linked into details about you, and also linked into higher up computing/clouds to pull data and help.
I mean Jesus, people get paranoid about a mic in their home that turns on with a keyword "Alexa"
People were even more paranoid about Kinnect as it may be spying on me!
God knows if we every get AI androids with eyes and ears!