[HN Gopher] Apple Intelligence for iPhone, iPad, and Mac
___________________________________________________________________
Apple Intelligence for iPhone, iPad, and Mac
Author : terramex
Score : 649 points
Date : 2024-06-10 18:48 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.apple.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com)
| minimaxir wrote:
| The name and attempted reappropriation of the term "AI" is going
| to make SEO a pain in the ass.
| dylan604 wrote:
| good. SEO should die in a dumpster fire. in fact, i would love
| to create a genmoji of that very thing
| nkotov wrote:
| While I think it's cool and I appreciate Apple crafting better
| stories on why this is helpful, I still think for the everyday
| person, they won't really care if it's AI or not.
| gkoberger wrote:
| Agreed! And the UI seemed pretty focused on not really
| clarifying too much; I think they just mentioned AI a lot since
| it was WWDC.
| smith7018 wrote:
| Most of Apple's announcements today featured AI but the term
| wasn't explicitly mentioned. I think the last portion of the
| keynote that focused on AI was merely for investors tbh
| dylan604 wrote:
| But Apple's integration means you can use it and not care if it
| is AI or not. It'll just become part of using iOS (let's face
| it, that's were the majority of Apple's users will be). From
| creating a new "genmoji" to any of the other examples of
| allowing people to do this without know WTF huggingface or the
| other equally ridiculously named products are. They don't need
| accounts. They just type a message and decide to put in a new
| image.
|
| Of course we've only seen examples from an overly produced
| hype/propaganda video, but it looks to me of yet another
| example of Apple taking products and making them usable to the
| masses
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > but it looks to me of yet another example of Apple taking
| products and making them usable to the masses
|
| This is a bit obsequious to Apple. I find it hard to give a
| cogent argument of how ChatGPT is not "usable to the masses"
| at this point (and being -used- by the masses).
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It doesn't integrate to anything, you need to explicitly
| give it context every time you ask it something.
|
| You can't just log in to ChatGPT and ask it what was on
| your calendar 2 weeks ago.
| hot_gril wrote:
| There's value in OS integration, but again, what are the real
| use cases? Memoji or whatever doesn't qualify. Apple has
| added a ton of features in recent years that I haven't used
| once. If it's going to manage my calendar in a way I can rely
| on or autocorrect will be smarter, that's actually useful.
| criddell wrote:
| If Apple does a really good job of this, then the everyday
| person probably shouldn't care if it's AI or not.
|
| Who cares _how_ your flight information shows up at the right
| time in the right place? the only thing that should matter is
| that it _does_.
| anonbanker wrote:
| And nobody cares about how absolutely terrifying your
| statement truly is, because the shiny benefits obfuscate the
| destruction of privacy, despite Apple's reassurances.
| criddell wrote:
| The upsides are obvious and concrete, the downsides are
| mostly hypotheticals.
|
| People already carry around a device with a GPS, camera,
| and microphone that has access to most of their intimate
| and personal communications and finances. Adding AI
| capabilities doesn't seem like a bridge too far, that's for
| sure.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Also those devices are reporting real-time location to
| cell carriers who are selling that data, and similarly
| credit cards are reporting purchases. I sorta care about
| that and won't shop at any local business that doesn't
| accept cash. I don't care if Apple wants to show me my
| flights, which surely any big bad org can already find on
| me.
| ru552 wrote:
| This is exactly what they are going for. You can just ask Siri
| now "what day did my wife say the recital is?" and Siri spits
| the answer out without requiring you to go scroll through your
| messages. Who cares that an LLM did the work?
| mfiguiere wrote:
| > Privacy protections are built in for users who access ChatGPT
| -- their IP addresses are obscured, and OpenAI won't store
| requests. ChatGPT's data-use policies apply for users who choose
| to connect their account.
|
| > ChatGPT will come to iOS 18, iPadOS 18, and macOS Sequoia later
| this year, powered by GPT-4o.
| talldayo wrote:
| > and OpenAI won't store requests.
|
| What's a promise from Sam Altman worth, again?
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| Even if the promise were made in good faith, I fear it may be
| hard to resist pressure from law enforcement etc.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| If Apple is sitting in the middle proxying the IP
| addresses, and not keeping any logs for longer than they
| absolutely need to, law enforcement could go pee up a rope,
| right?
| talldayo wrote:
| You'd _hope_ so, but corporate resistance against
| domestic intelligence has a bumpy track record:
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/apple-admits-
| to-...
| educasean wrote:
| Tim Cook doesn't seem to mind hanging his reputation on
| sama's promise, so at least that's something
| minimaxir wrote:
| The promise is from Apple, not OpenAI, and likely
| contractual.
|
| If OpenAI actually went against that, Apple would unleash the
| mother of all lawsuits.
| wilg wrote:
| What broken Sam Altman promises are you referring to?
| avtar wrote:
| Personally I would say the disparity between what was in
| their founding agreement "be open-source--freely and
| publicly available for anyone to use, modify and
| distribute" https://archive.ph/R0LBL to the current state
| of affairs.
|
| But I guess the list of grievances could be longer:
|
| https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/what-should-we-learn-
| from-...
| zoky wrote:
| Leaving OpenAI, for one.
| aaronharnly wrote:
| That's not a "promise from Sam Altman", that's a contractual
| term between Apple, Inc. and OpenAI, LLC.
|
| So I think it's worth as much as Apple is willing to spend
| enforcing it, which I imagine would be quite a bit.
| shbooms wrote:
| > that's a contractual term between Apple, Inc. and OpenAI,
| LLC.
|
| do you have a source on this or are you just assuming?
| buildbot wrote:
| Do you think this is all running off the standard openai
| API and they picked a dev at random in Apple to use their
| accounts API keys?
|
| Of course there is some agreement...
| Tagbert wrote:
| It would be a very surprising business arrangement if
| that was not explicitly called out. Apple is not going to
| leave this to chance.
| talldayo wrote:
| > Apple is not going to leave this to chance.
|
| How much would you be willing to bet, on a statement like
| this? I love a sporting chance.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| If we find out in the next 12 months that OpenAI has been
| storing requests from Apple/Siri AND Apple doesn't come
| down on them with a 10 ton lawyer hammer, I'll pay you
| $500.
|
| Can you match it the other way around? :)
| hot_gril wrote:
| Idk about Sam Altman in particular, but OpenAI pulled the
| bait-and-switch you can still see in its name. We don't
| know what the contract says exactly, but there are always
| loopholes, and I would not assume anything OpenAI says to
| be in good faith.
|
| I also don't really care, but it's understandable why some
| people do.
| Handy-Man wrote:
| That's just the enterprise guarantee. The same applies to
| Azure OpenAI services and the API services provided by OpenAI
| directly.
| shironononon wrote:
| "let's store responses and a hash of the request intent in a
| kvp then"
| talldayo wrote:
| Please, an _encrypted_ key-value store. The private key is
| only shared between you, Apple, and relevant law-enforcement
| agencies. It 's as private as you can ask for, these days!
| Tomte wrote:
| No transcripts in Voice Memos? The one feature I was surprised
| hasn't already been there for years, heavily rumored before this
| WWDC, and now nothing?
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| From MacRumors:
|
| > Notes can record and transcribe audio. When your recording is
| finished, Apple Intelligence automatically generates a summary.
| Recording and summaries coming to phone calls too.
|
| So the functionality exists, maybe just not in the Voice Memos
| app?
| Tomte wrote:
| That would be great, the three or so articles I read said
| nothing about it. Thanks!
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Looks like a very similar strategy as Google Maps on the initial
| iPhone
| newhaus1994 wrote:
| the natural language tasking for actions between apps is the
| first thing that's made me excited about anything related to the
| latest AI craze. if apple can keep it actually private/secure,
| I'm looking forward to this.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| So they have models running on Apple silicone in the cloud, does
| that mean it's running its own models?
| machinekob wrote:
| Or just opensource models
| Tagbert wrote:
| Ajax is the name of their home-grown LLM. Ferret UI is another
| model that they have published papers on that lets them look at
| the UI of an app to understand how to interact and automate it.
| hu3 wrote:
| Am I understanding correctly that some AI will run on Apple
| servers? So not completely offline AI.
|
| If so that's somewhat disappointing given how much AI power Apple
| hardware packs.
|
| > Apple sets a new standard for privacy in AI, with the ability
| to flex and scale computational capacity between on-device
| processing and larger, server-based models that run on dedicated
| Apple silicon servers
| dylan604 wrote:
| The interesting thing I took from that is they are making
| servers with M-series chips. Maybe they're just rack mounted
| Mac Minis? But if Apple decides that crap, maybe it'll get them
| to a point where they decided to make a proper rack mountable
| form factor available??? <genmojiTechPrayingInFrontOfRack>
| Almondsetat wrote:
| I think it's a little disingenuous to think on-device
| accelerators on a mobile phone would be able to do literally
| any AI task without help
| onesociety2022 wrote:
| Maybe that is actually good for iPhone buyers? Otherwise every
| 2 years, they will claim a bunch of new AI features will not
| work on your older device. But if they can delegate requests to
| a server, older devices can continue receiving newer AI
| features from future iOS releases (they will just be slower
| than the newer iPhones which will run them locally).
| nottorp wrote:
| I have only one question: can I turn it off?
| gkoberger wrote:
| Why? Things are secure (outside of the explicit OpenAI calls
| via Siri) and mostly seem subtly integrated. You don't have to
| use each feature, but why blindly disable all AI having not
| even tried it?
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Why take up processor time or memory for a feature I don't
| want? Or the increase in threat space?
| Almondsetat wrote:
| This could be said for literally every single feature of a
| smartphone, down to the out of order execution of the CPU
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Yes. I would like to be able to disable other smartphone
| features I don't use. But that's already the case. Like
| the GPS, for instance, is disabled unless I'm using the
| map. And even that can be set to "never" if I want.
| nottorp wrote:
| I also have animations toned down from the accessibility
| settings, yes :)
| hot_gril wrote:
| That's exactly why I wait extra long to install updates.
| Voloskaya wrote:
| Not wanting to send that much data to Apple's server no
| matter the pinky promise they make about caring for our data?
| That's a legit ask.
| nottorp wrote:
| Apple's? You mean OpenAI's...
| upon_drumhead wrote:
| I've tried a number of these things and I honestly don't see
| the value in them. I have to double check everything they do
| and it takes longer to describe what I want and double check
| everything then just to do it myself.
|
| I'll be disabling everything I can. I don't use Siri or
| anything of that sort as well.
| seydor wrote:
| "It will automatically find a picture of your drivers
| license, read the number and add it to your text"
|
| This is scary stuff that should not be happening on anything
| that is closed-source and unaudited publicly. The
| pervasiveness of surveillance it enables is astounding.
| gkoberger wrote:
| How is it any more dangerous than having a picture of your
| ID on your phone? It uses a local model for finding and
| extracting data, and confirms before autofill.
|
| Should we start auditing wallets next? People's driver
| licenses are sitting insecure and unencrypted in their
| pockets! Anyone could grab it!
|
| Security is important, but being alarmist toward thoughtful
| progress hurts everyone.
| Spivak wrote:
| What's different about this from the current implementation
| of searching photos for 'driver's license' and it pulling
| up pictures of your license? iOS has already been using
| "AI" image recognition for years on your photos.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Yes, this is an extension of that feature and a further
| integration with other enhancements. Apple has been doing
| "machine learning" for years for features like this. Now
| they are starting to bring those features together using
| other models like LLMs.
| hot_gril wrote:
| Stuff that I don't use can get in the way.
| martimarkov wrote:
| Which part? The online or offline capabilities?
| latexr wrote:
| You can turn Siri off, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is
| the same: a toggle on by default that they present you when
| upgrading the OS. Perhaps even just the same toggle for Siri
| controls all of this as a whole.
| rockemsockem wrote:
| You're an apple user, you decided a long time ago that they
| know what's best for you
| nottorp wrote:
| I almost shed a tear, then I remembered the alternative is
| Google...
| hot_gril wrote:
| Apple has decided to allow users to disable various features,
| so the question is, do they let you disable this.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| It did sound like it would be opt-in. I think the current
| iteration of Siri already is, so it would make sense if they
| kept it that way.
| everfree wrote:
| Turn off what part and why? They announced several new systems,
| much of which runs on-device, one of which is simply an
| improved Siri. I was surprised by how considerate they seemed
| about AI data privacy, even for Apple.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Turn off what part and why?
|
| Assume any part, and assume none of your business.
| everfree wrote:
| It's not reasonable to expect to be able to turn off "any
| part" of a piece of software, unless it's open source and
| you're digging through the code yourself to remove sections
| of it, refactor and re-compile everything.
|
| That said, Apple generally gives people very fine-grained
| controls over what software features they want enabled, at
| least compared to other closed-source software vendors.
|
| My question "what part and why" was intended to open up a
| discussion about privacy in regards to Apple's AI. But if
| your answer is simply "none of your business", then my
| answer to the question "can I turn it off" is simply
| "nobody has any way of knowing yet." Neither of those
| answers are great discussion openers.
|
| Your username seems to check out.
| demondemidi wrote:
| I don't want any part of my personal data (what I write,
| what I photograph, what I record, what I jot down) to be
| viewed by anything by my own eyes or the encryption
| algorithm converting it to ciphertext to send across a
| secure channel WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
|
| Period.
|
| Reason: again, nobody's business.
|
| If you don't get this then, a) you're not in a high-risk
| group for discrimination, or b) you've never been
| subjected systemic polices designed to keep you "in
| line".
| nottorp wrote:
| I do wonder if my privacy awareness has a connection with
| the fact that I lived the first 13 years of my life under
| an eastern block dictatorship ...
|
| However in this case I'm also concerned about needless
| power consumption. Especially on battery.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| In most cases the one using most power in a modern
| smartphone is the display.
|
| And knowing Apple, the RAG-stuff will be done overnight
| when the phone is charging, not during use.
| everfree wrote:
| I do get this. I don't know why you'd assume I don't.
|
| And the sentiment behind your comment seems very
| reasonable, reading past its non-sequitur tone.
| visarga wrote:
| It's one thing to have private information at rest, another to
| have it indexed, and interpreted by a LLM. What if some virus
| orders the LLM to search for blackmail material and email it to
| them? The very act of putting a LLM near your data is a
| security concern. If someone else orders your Siri to reveal
| something, it can get to the prize in seconds, with AI help.
| slashdave wrote:
| A virus can use its own LLM, so I guess you don't want
| indexing at all. Makes it hard to find stuff.
| red_admiral wrote:
| Microsoft's recall is going to have that feature, according to
| the latest updates on the matter. I hope apple won't lag behind
| on implementing this one.
| duskhorizon2 wrote:
| Nope. I afraid AI future is mandatory ;)
| algesten wrote:
| "Semantic Index" sure is a better name than "Recall". Question is
| whether I can exfiltrate all my personal data in seconds?
| gigel82 wrote:
| It's all in the "private cloud". "Trust me bro", it's like
| totally private, only us and a handful of governments can read
| it.
| algesten wrote:
| Yeah. It's going to be great. Selected experts are saying so.
| fmbb wrote:
| I mean I can already search my photos for "dog" or "burger" or
| words in text on photos. Adding an LLM to chat about it is just
| a new interface is it not?
| algesten wrote:
| I think the important thing is that the semantic index tracks
| all you do through all your apps.
| qeternity wrote:
| They are likely implemented very differently. I'm not certain
| but I imagine the current photos app uses an image model to
| detect and label objects which you can search against. I
| expect Semantic Index (by virtue of the name) to be a vector
| store of embeddings.
| anonbanker wrote:
| I'm sure a simple Webkit vulnerability (there's none of those,
| ever, right?) will _definitely_ not ensure that Semantic Index
| is featured in a future pwn2own competition.
| amrrs wrote:
| Slap on the face all Cloud based LLM providers!
| talldayo wrote:
| Or pay them, for a deal that gives you access to a competitor's
| product.
| rasengan wrote:
| There has never been a better time to move to Linux. Have you
| tried Omakub? Manjaro? Mint? Ubuntu 24? These are polished and
| complete alternatives and your favorite app probably has a Linux
| build already!
| jawngee wrote:
| | These are polished and complete alternatives
|
| Are they though?
|
| I just setup ubuntu 24 for my son to play games and it's
| comparatively a very unpolished experience. I'm being very
| polite when I say that.
| rasengan wrote:
| That's interesting - it was Ubuntu 24 that made me feel
| confident the first time to recommend to non-computer
| enthusiasts. What about Ubuntu 24 came off unpolished to you,
| if you don't mind me asking?
| jwells89 wrote:
| Even as someone who keeps a laptop booted into Linux most of
| the time, yes there are bumps and rough edges that _will_ be
| encountered once venturing off the most common path of
| "internet, video, and word processor box". It's much better
| than it once was but it still has problems and the way that
| fervent advocates try to sweep them under the rug doesn't
| help the situation.
| anonbanker wrote:
| Ubuntu, sadly, is not a good experience for a multitude of
| reasons outside of Canonical's control, including codec and
| software licensing restrictions.
|
| Gamers should absolutely be heading towards Nobara Linux
| (Fedora-based, created by GloriousEggroll of Proton-GE fame).
| Developers should be trying Omakub. Grandma and Grandpa
| should be using Linux Mint.
| anonbanker wrote:
| Trying Omakub in the next 48-72 hours. I can't wait. It looks
| like the curated experience I've been looking for.
| skilled wrote:
| They did a lot of work for this release, and the number of
| integrations is beyond what I expected. In a few years time you
| might not need to hold your phone at all and just get everything
| done with voice - kind of cool, actually.
|
| Auto transcripts for calls (with permission) is another feature I
| really liked.
|
| I was a little surprised to see/hear no mention of inaccuracies,
| but for ChatGPT they did show the "Check for important facts"
| notice.
| culopatin wrote:
| That sounds like what Humane is trying to do. But I would
| honestly hate to do everything by voice and have everyone
| around me know what I'm doing and hear everyone around me talk
| to their phones all the time. Sounds like a nightmare
| Tagbert wrote:
| I would expect it to be situational. I also was happy to see
| that they introduced a typed interface to Siri so you can do
| this without speaking.
| amne wrote:
| So far the only reasonable place I can think of where I could
| find myself actually using voice to control anything is on the
| toilet. that's it
| runeb wrote:
| Walking, cycling, running, driving, relaxing on the couch
| Tagbert wrote:
| There is a lot less fodder for inaccuracies if the data and
| processing are all on your device. A lot of the inaccuracies in
| Gemini and ChatGPT arise because they are using the web for
| answers and that is a much less reliable source than your own
| emails and messages.
| rqtwteye wrote:
| It's a little disappointing that even big companies like Apple
| jump on OpenAI instead of building their own thing. Diversity
| seems pretty important with AI.
| fsto wrote:
| They use OpenAI as an optional fallback model. Adding support
| for more models later. I'm positively surprised they're not
| trying to solve everything with their own tech.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Or, use existing now to get it going, then swap out for your
| own thing later. Hopefully, it will be better than previous
| swaps so that it doesn't be a meme worthy of being mocked in
| a comedy show "is it Apple Maps bad?"
| frenchie4111 wrote:
| Unfortunately OpenAI has a pretty big "dollars and hours spent
| on GPUs" moat right now. I imagine Apple is already hard at
| work building their own models, but until then they will
| leverage 3rd parties
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Apple has 10x more on reserve cash than the entirety of
| OpenAI when they trained GPT-4. I don't think OpenAI could
| have possibly spent $5B or more for training first version of
| GPT-4(which was trained before GPT-3.5 gained traction),
| which is a pocket change for Apple for such a core feature.
| kristjansson wrote:
| All the interesting features appear to be de novo models from
| Apple? Only the last fallback-to-ChatGPT feature interacts with
| OpenAI.
| cube2222 wrote:
| This seems really cool.
|
| They said the models can scale to "private cloud compute" based
| on Apple Silicon which will be ensured by your device to run
| "publicly verifiable software" in order to guarantee no misuse of
| your data.
|
| I wonder if their server-side code will be open-source? That'd be
| positively surprising. Curious to see how this evolves.
|
| Anyway, overall looks really really cool. If it works as
| marketed, then it will be an easy "shut up and take my money".
| Siri seems to finally be becoming what it was meant to be (I
| wonder if they're piggy-backing on top of the Shortcuts Actions
| catalogue to have a wide array of possible actions right away),
| and the image and emoji generation features that integrate with
| Apple Photos and other parts of the system look _really_ cool.
|
| It seems like it will require M1+ on Macs/iPads, or an iPhone 15
| Pro.
| TillE wrote:
| > I wonder if their server-side code will be open-source
|
| No, but they said it'll be available for audit by independent
| experts.
| anonbanker wrote:
| How do we sign up to be an independent expert? We need about
| 50,000 eyeballs on this at all times.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| How many independent eyeballs are on Gemini's servers or
| OpenAI's?
| ENGNR wrote:
| They're not making the privacy claim
| TheFragenTaken wrote:
| I don't understand why people act like this is a new way of
| working. Hundreds of ISO certifications require independent
| audit. Functionally this can be done in many ways, like
| source code access by human reviewers, or static scanning
| with signed results. What's important is not who looks, be it
| PwC, Deloitte, or industry peers. It's important whats being
| looked for, and what standards are being followed.
| ru552 wrote:
| ~It seems like it will require M1+ on Macs/iPads, or an iPhone
| 15 Pro.
|
| They specifically stated it required iPhone 15 Pro or higher
| and anything with a m1 or higher.
| alberth wrote:
| Regarding OpenAI, has Apple in its history ever relied so heavily
| on a 3rd party for software features?
|
| (TSMC for hardware, but it seems very un-Apple to be so dependent
| upon someone else for software capabilities like OpenAI)
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| OG iPhone had Google as Maps provider and YouTube both within
| Apple shells and the branding downplayed in Maps case
|
| That's the only case I can think of where it's an external tech
| you're making requests to, usually it's things like Rosetta
| made out of Apple IIRC but integrated internally
| latexr wrote:
| > Rosetta is made out of Apple IIRC but integrated internally
|
| Don't think that's right. I think Rosetta was always made
| inside Apple.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
|
| Perhaps mixing it up because of Rosetta Stone?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone_(software)
| kevbin wrote:
| > Transitive is providing the engine used in Apple's
| Rosetta software, which translates software for its current
| machines using PowerPC processors so it can run on
| forthcoming Intel-based Macintoshes. "We've had a long-term
| relationship with them," Transitive Chief Executive Bob
| Wiederhold said Tuesday.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/the-
| brains-b...
| martimarkov wrote:
| They did it with Google Maps and YouTube. They also do this
| with the search engine used in Safari.
|
| I believe they will just provide an interface in the future to
| plugin as a Backend AI provider to trusted parties (like the
| search engine) but will slowly build their own ChatGPT for more
| and more stuff.
| paradite wrote:
| Does Microsoft Office in early days of Mac OS count? I guess
| not.
| philwelch wrote:
| Microsoft Office was released five years after the Macintosh;
| what are you talking about?
| wtallis wrote:
| The applications that were later bundled into Office were
| on the Mac pretty early: 1985 for Word and Excel, and the
| first PowerPoint in 1987 was Mac-only.
| philwelch wrote:
| Fair, though the very first Macs came with MacWrite
| preinstalled.
| TMWNN wrote:
| I don't see why it would not count. Same for Adobe products.
| gfosco wrote:
| The OpenAI reference came at the end, and it appears it's
| mostly a fallback... an option, that users must explicitly
| allow every time. Hardly a dependency. Most of the time, it
| will be on-device or apple-hosted in "private compute cloud",
| not connected to OpenAI at all.
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| Google Maps in the early days of iOS?
|
| Anyway it seems like a small subset of Siri queries utilize
| ChatGPT, the vast majority of functionality is performed either
| locally or with Apple's cloud apparently.
|
| They were also pretty explicit about planning to support other
| backend AI providers in the future.
| LogHouse wrote:
| I wondered the same, but frankly, what other options are there?
| hackerlight wrote:
| It's going to be easy to substitute in their own LLM behind
| the API in the future. None of the branding or platform is
| controlled by OpenAI.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Seems like the OpenAI integration is a nice-to-have, but mostly
| separate from Super-Siri?
| pat2man wrote:
| Google Maps, YouTube, on the original iPhone?
| alberth wrote:
| But those were standalone apps.
|
| This AI capability is integrated throughout the entire OS and
| Apps.
|
| It's now part of the "fabric" of iOS.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Only in response to some classes of requests. They didn't
| go into detail about when but they said that the local Siri
| LLM would evaluate the request and decide if it could be
| services locally, in their private cloud AI, or would need
| to use OpenAI. Then it would pop up a requesting asking if
| you want to send the request to OpenAI. It doesn't look
| like that would a particularly common occurrence. Seems
| like it would be needed for "answerbot" type of requests
| where live web data is being requested.
| mholm wrote:
| The majority of this is local AI with nothing to do with
| openAI. Only particularly complex requests go to them
| latexr wrote:
| That might be smarter than we initially give it credit. By
| leaving the "safer" (read: harder to get wrong) things to their
| own models and then the more "creative" stuff to an explicit
| external model, they can shift blame: "Hey, we didn't made up
| that information, we explicitly said that was ChatGPT". I don't
| think they'll say it outright like that. Because they won't
| have to.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| iCloud uses Google Cloud
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| Maybe I missed something but it doesn't sound like OpenAI is
| powering any of this except the optional integrations.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| As with Google Maps, my guess is that they will only rely on it
| long enough to get their own LLM offer up to parity, at which
| point it might still be there as an option but there will be
| very little need for users to activate it.
|
| Also, it seems that most of Siri's improved features will still
| work without it (though perhaps less well in same cases) -- and
| therefore Apple is not fully dependent on it.
| TIPSIO wrote:
| So the future of computing really is AI agents doing everything:
|
| - siri text chat now on the lock screen
|
| - incoming a billion developer app functions/APIs
|
| - better notifications
|
| - can make network requests
|
| Why even open any other app?
| terramex wrote:
| > Why even open any other app?
|
| This was my first thought when I saw Rabbit r1 - will all of us
| become backend developers just glueing various API between
| legacy services and LLMs? Today seems like another step in that
| direction.
| imabotbeep2937 wrote:
| The whole world will be headless content. There won't be any
| web pages, or bank sites, or TV networks. Nobody will be a
| developer. We'll all just be content authors, like Google
| Maps Guides basically being unpaid interns checking
| restaurant data for Google.
|
| You open your phone, it just shovels content. And it does
| absolutely nothing but optimize on addiction.
|
| No apps, only masters.
| imabotbeep2937 wrote:
| Nobody is realizing this coming singularity.
|
| Your phone won't do anything else. For 99% of people, they pick
| up their phone, AI will just decide what they want to see. And
| most will accept it.
|
| Someday everyone in the room will all pick up their phones when
| they all ring at once. It will be some emotional trigger like a
| live feed from a school shooting. Everyone in the room will
| start screaming at the totally different experiences they're
| being presented. Evil liberals, clueless law enforcement,
| product placement being shown over the shooter's gun. You'll
| sit horrified because you returned to a dumbphone to escape.
|
| That will be the reality if this AI assistant stuff isn't
| checked hard now. AI is getting better at addiction an order of
| magnitude faster than it's getting better at actual tasks.
| c1sc0 wrote:
| Not necessarily, that entirely depends on the reward function
| being used, but I get your point.
| jspann wrote:
| I remain skeptical until I see it in action. On the one hand,
| Apple has a good track record with privacy and keeping things on
| device. On the other, there was too much ambiguity around this
| announcement. What is the threshold for running something in the
| cloud? How is your personal model used across devices - does that
| mean it briefly moves to the cloud? How does its usage change
| across guest modes? Even the phrase "OpenAI won't store requests"
| feels intentionally opaque.
|
| I was personally holding out for a federated learning approach
| where multiple Apple devices could be used to process a request
| but I guess the Occam's razor prevails. I'll wait and see.
| machinekob wrote:
| Same they say privacy so many times i got Facebook PTSD.
| boringg wrote:
| I mean theres a difference between these companies on their
| privacy stance historical and current.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| They need to provide a mechanism to view the data being
| uploaded by you
| robbyking wrote:
| > _What is the threshold for running something in the cloud?_
|
| To be fair, this was just the keynote -- details will be
| revealed in the sessions.
| epolanski wrote:
| > has a good track record with privacy
|
| They repeated this so many times they've made it true.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Do you have proof otherwise? Compared to the competition, who
| openly use everything about you to build a profile.
| yencabulator wrote:
| > Apple has a good track record with privacy and keeping things
| on device.
|
| Apple also has a long track record of "you're holding it
| wrong". I don't expect an amazing AI assistant out of them, I
| expect something that sometimes does what the user meant.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > Apple also has a long track record of "you're holding it
| wrong".
|
| And yet this was never said.
|
| Closest was this:
|
| > Just don't hold it that way.
|
| Or maybe this:
|
| > If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid
| gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers
| both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply
| use one of many available cases.
| yencabulator wrote:
| It's merely the instance that gave the name to the
| phenomena, not the only time it happened.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| What phenomena?
| hmottestad wrote:
| When Apple published a webpage about how other phones
| also got reduced reception when you held them in a
| particular way, but then basically immediately pulled it.
| And then a while later they offered a free bumper case to
| mitigate the whole issue.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Apple has a good track record with privacy and keeping things
| on device.
|
| I mean they have great PR, but in terms of privacy, they
| extract more information from you than google does.
| corps_and_code wrote:
| Can you explain what you mean with "extract more information
| from you than google" here?
|
| Not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what sources or
| info you're using to make that claim.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Do you have a source for this?
|
| Google is an ad company, they have a full model of what you
| like and dont like at different states of your life built.
|
| What does Apple have that's even close?
| its_ethan wrote:
| I think what he's getting at is that Apple does collect a
| lot of very similar data about it's users. Apple Maps still
| collects data about where you've driven - the difference is
| that they don't turn around and sell that data like Google
| loves to do.
|
| I believe (but could be wrong) they also treat that data in
| a way that prevents it from being accessed by anyone
| besides the user (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%
| E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...
| themadturk wrote:
| I get the sense there's still a lot of work to be done over the
| next few months, and we may see some feature slippage. The
| betas will be where we see their words in action, and I'll be
| staying far away from the betas, which will be a little
| painful. I think ambiguity works in their favor right now. It's
| better to underpromise and overdeliver, instead of vice versa.
| xrisk wrote:
| It seems that the Apple intelligence stuff will be 15 Pro. Man, I
| just bought a 15 ~8 months ago. That really sucks.
| theswifter01 wrote:
| For real, I'm sure a fair amount of previous processors are
| able to handle it fine, just a reason for ppl to buy the next
| phone
| JohnMakin wrote:
| I am excited to try Siri with this technology enabled. I can't
| really remember a time when siri ever really worked, although
| recently I actually got her to play a song on youtube for me
| after a few attempts and was pretty pleased with that. Outside of
| "set my alarm for 4:30" kind of stuff, she's never really been
| that useful, and if you are even kind of disabled, this feature
| can be really useful to the point of life changing if it is done
| properly.
| davidbarker wrote:
| So, if I've got this correct there's:
|
| 1. On-device AI
|
| 2. AI using Apple's servers
|
| 3. AI using ChatGPT/OpenAI's services (and others in the future)
|
| Number 1 will pass to number 2 if it thinks it requires the extra
| processing power, but number 3 will only be invoked with explicit
| user permission.
|
| [Edit: As pointed out below, other providers will be coming
| eventually.]
| frenchie4111 wrote:
| That was my sense as well. I would have appreciated some
| clarification on where the line between 1 and 2 was, although I
| am sure a YouTuber will deep dive on it as soon as they have it
| in their hands
| gigel82 wrote:
| The problem is they don't explicitly define when 1 can pass to
| 2 and whether we can fully and categorically disable it. As far
| as I know, 1 can pass to 2 when governments ask for some
| personal data or when Apple's ad model needs some intimate
| details for personalization.
| Tagbert wrote:
| The information provided for level two is end to end
| encrypted and not stored so the risk level is pretty low
| here.
| coolspot wrote:
| Ent-to-end encrypted means that the other end (Apple/NSA)
| has access to it.
| Tagbert wrote:
| It does need to process the data. The server has no
| persistent storage and no remote shell. It is a limited
| and locked down special-purpose iOS.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Imagine the memory on their server is encrypted with an
| on-processor key (something like intel SGX) -- reading OS
| memory, e.g dumping from linux or hardware, you can't
| read it unless you somehow extract the key (which are
| different on each chip) from the physical chip. Now, the
| process running using that encrypted memory generates TLS
| keys for you to send the data, and operates on it only
| inside this secure enclave.
|
| There is no way to access it without destroying the chip,
| and even in this scenario it will be extremely expensive
| and imo unlikely, certainly impossible at scale. Some
| scientists may be able to do it once in a lab.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| BTW there is an entire industry popping up around exactly
| this sort of use case, it's called 'confidential
| computing' and CNCF have some software in the works
| (confidential containers iirc). I'm pretty excited to see
| what risc-v is going to bring to the party enclave wise.
| davidcbc wrote:
| Ok, I'm imagining.
|
| Now, is any of that actually true?
| terramex wrote:
| Lvl 3 is supposed to support other models and providers in the
| future too. I hope it will support every server with simple,
| standard API so I can run self-hosted LLama 3 (or whatever will
| be released in next 6-12 months).
| hmottestad wrote:
| Or Groq. They can do 1250 tokens/s with Llama 3 8B.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I see no real difference between 2 and 3. Once the data has
| left your device, it has left your device. There is no getting
| it back and you no longer have any control over it.
| stnmtn wrote:
| Certainly there's a difference. You are right that the jump
| is big between 1 and 2, but it is negligent to say that
| Apple, a company which strives for improved privacy and
| security, and ChatGPT have the same privacy practices.
| drpossum wrote:
| No, that's not the point. The point is neither of those
| companies could have the same values _you_ have for _your_
| data and you are then leaving the security of that data in
| the hands of someone else. Even Apple, who is better than
| most, values your privacy with a dollar value representing
| your custom and their reputation. That is not how I value
| (nor most people value) their data. The latter point
| applies to any company, regardless of intention because
| security breaches are a matter of when, not if, and if
| anyone says otherwise they should not be talking about
| security.
| coob wrote:
| Most people are happy for (2) already - iCloud Photos, Device
| backups, iCloud Messages... email.
|
| Those that won't use those won't use this either.
| privacyking wrote:
| You do realise that already happens though? If you read
| apple's privacy policy they send a lot of what you do to
| their servers.
|
| Furthermore how private do you think Siri is? Their privacy
| policy explicitly states they send transcripts of what you
| say to them. That cannot be disabled.
| underlogic wrote:
| That's the problem. These AI features may be "free" but is
| there an option to disable them system wide from rummaging
| through all your data and building a profile in order to be
| helpful? If not I won't update. And I mean one tickbox not
| a separate switch for every app and feature like siri has
| making it nearly impossible to disable
| Terretta wrote:
| > _I see no real difference between 2 and 3._
|
| This #2, so-called "Private Cloud Compute", is not the same
| as iCloud. And certainly not the same as sending queries to
| OpenAI.
|
| Quoting:
|
| _"With Private Cloud Compute, Apple Intelligence can flex
| and scale its computational capacity and draw on larger,
| server-based models for more complex requests. These models
| run on servers powered by Apple silicon, providing a
| foundation that allows Apple to ensure that data is never
| retained or exposed."_
|
| _"Independent experts can inspect the code that runs on
| Apple silicon servers to verify privacy, and Private Cloud
| Compute cryptographically ensures that iPhone, iPad, and Mac
| do not talk to a server unless its software has been publicly
| logged for inspection."_
|
| _"Apple Intelligence with Private Cloud Compute sets a new
| standard for privacy in AI, unlocking intelligence users can
| trust."_
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yes, that's all well and good but assumes no mistakes and
| no National Security letters ordering them to describe it
| that way and no changes of control or business strategy at
| some point in the future.
|
| Once the data is out of your possession it's out of your
| control.
| mostlysimilar wrote:
| Not everyone has nation states in their threat models. I
| want privacy from corporations / surveillance capitalism,
| not the US government. Apple's privacy promises are
| focused on keeping my data out of the hands of bad actors
| like Google etc. and that's more than enough for me.
| magicalist wrote:
| A threat model of Google getting your email revision
| makes these statements sillier. TLS and existing privacy
| policies are sufficient.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| There are VERY few things that can keep your information
| safe if a TLA wants it. You need to go full Edward
| Snowden with phones in faraday cages and typing passwords
| under a sheet -levels of paranoia to be fully safe.
|
| Drow "nation state is after me" from the threat model and
| you'll be a lot happier.
| transpute wrote:
| _> nation state ... threat model_
|
| The history of tech is the history of falling costs with
| mass production. Expensive TLA surveillance tech for
| nation states can become broadly accessible, e.g.
| through-wall WiFi radar sensing sold to millions via IEEE
| 802.11bf WiFi 7 Sensing in "AI" PCs [1], or USB implant
| cables [2] with a few zeros lopped off the TLA price.
|
| Instead of adversary motives, threat models can be based
| on adversary costs.
|
| As adversary costs fall, threat models need to evolve.
|
| [1]
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/02/27/1088154/wifi-
| sen...
|
| [2] https://shop.hak5.org/products/omg-cable
| ENGNR wrote:
| True, but there's a difference between
|
| - TLA agency deploys scarce zero days or field ops
| because you're particularly interesting, vs..
|
| - TLA agency has everything about you in a dragnet, and
| low level cop in small town searches your data for a
| laugh because they know you, and leaks it back to your
| social circle or uses it for commercial advantage
| jeroenhd wrote:
| "We make the hardware and we pinky promise that we will
| protect your data and will open source part of it" means
| nothing for privacy. Especially when things like warrants
| come into play.
| dudus wrote:
| It's a big mental gymnastics to do the same as Google and
| Microsoft while claiming moral superiority.
|
| Apple's thrown stones come back to hunt their glass
| ceiling.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Eh with modern processor features like secure enclaves
| it's definitely possible to build systems in which the
| operators _CANNOT_ access the information. (I worked on
| such a system using SGX for a large car producer, even
| physical access to the machines /hypervisors/raw memory
| would not give you access, perhaps the nsa has some keys
| baked in to extract a session key you may generate inside
| an enclave, but it would be very surprising if they
| burned that backdoor on anything as low fruit as this).
| jeroenhd wrote:
| SGX has been broken by speculative execution bugs,
| though. Had something to do with people extracting DRM
| keys, if I recall correctly, not exactly a nation state
| attack. Since then, SGX has been removed from modern
| Intel processors (breaking some Blurays and software
| products for newer chips in the process).
|
| Secure enclave stuff can be used to build a trust
| relationship if it's designed well, but Apple is the
| party hosting the service and the one burning the private
| keys into the chip.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Yep, it was broken a few times but fixed with microcode
| patches (afaik). It's still a part of the server
| processors and in wide use already. I'm not saying it's a
| golden bullet or otherwise infallable, but it sure beats
| cat /dev/mem by quite some way.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| If we can't trust independent audits of code and
| hardware, what can we trust?
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I will trust independent audits of local code and local
| hardware. There are still plenty of opportunities for
| someone to send out malicious patches, but the code
| running can (and probably will) be analysed by
| journalists looking for a scoop and security researchers
| looking for a bug bounty.
|
| I have no idea what code is running on a server I can't
| access. I can't exactly go SSH into siri.apple.com and
| match checksums. Knowing Apple's control freak attitude,
| I very much doubt any researcher permitted to look at
| their servers is going to be very independent either.
|
| Apple is just as privacy friendly as ChatGPT or Gemini.
| That's not necessarily a bad thing! AI requires feeding
| lots of data into the cloud, that's how it works. Trying
| to sell their service as anything more than that is
| disingenuous, though.
| ReverseCold wrote:
| > I have no idea what code is running on a server I can't
| access.
|
| That's like... the whole point? You have some kind of
| hardware-based measured boot thing that can provide a
| cryptographic attestation that the code it's running is
| the same as the code that's been reviewed by an
| independent auditor. If the auditor confirms that the
| data isn't being stored, just processed and thrown away,
| that's _almost_ as good as on-device compute for 99.999%
| of users. (On-device compute can also be backdoored, so
| you have to trust this even in the case that everything
| is local.)
|
| The presentation was fairly detail-light so I don't know
| if this is actually what they're doing, but it's nice to
| see some effort in this direction.
|
| E: I roughly agree with this comment
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40638740) later
| down the thread -- what _exactly_ the auditors are
| verifying is the key important bit.
| BlobberSnobber wrote:
| Exactly, Apple has barely any oversight or accountability
| for their privacy claims. Sad to see so many people
| taking their word at face value.
| ENGNR wrote:
| Open code, inspected and used by a large number of users,
| hosted on hardware you physically control
| ryr11 wrote:
| I think that's fair, but impractical for most users. I
| have a number of Home Assistant integrations with locally
| hosted AI models for smart home features, but I wouldn't
| expect my grandma to set up a server and a few VMs when
| she could just give her HomePod a prompt that works with
| AI and have no worries about the implementation. Do you
| feel like Apple's "independent" auditing is insufficient?
| ENGNR wrote:
| > Do you feel like Apple's "independent" auditing is
| insufficient?
|
| Yeah, pretty much
|
| Also, your grandma might not setup a VM, but it sounds
| like the off-device processing is essentially stateless,
| or at most might have a very lightweight session. It
| seems like the kind of thing one person could setup for
| their family (with the same tamper-proof signatures, plus
| physical security), or provide a privacy focused
| appliance for anyone to just plug into a wall, if they
| wanted to.
| l33tman wrote:
| I think it boils down to that it doesn't matter what they
| promise, if you send a videocap of all you ever do on
| your computer to some company on the internet, you just
| have to take your chances. Would you put mics and cameras
| in all of your rooms in your home that send data to Apple
| (or someone else) to analyze "for your benefit" even if
| they say and promise they won't do anything bad with the
| feeds?
|
| At least with gmail and chat clients etc. things are
| somewhat put in compartments, one of the services might
| screw up and do something with your emails but your
| Messenger or WhatsApp chats are not affected by that, or
| vice versa. But when you bake it into the OS (laptop or
| phone) you're IMHO taking a much bigger risk, no matter
| what the intentions are.
| subjectsigma wrote:
| Isn't this basically what Signal does? Legitimately
| asking; I thought parts of their server implementation
| were closed source.
| StrLght wrote:
| That's too many words with surprisingly little meaning. I'd
| suggest to wait for more technical details and to treat
| this as marketing until then.
| r00fus wrote:
| Hopefully they have some toggle in settings for this.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Apple has demonstrated to be relatively trustworthy about
| privacy while most AI companies have demonstrated the
| opposite, so I do see a significant difference.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Google was considered very cool and trustworthy at one
| point also. "Do no evil" and all that.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Google's entire buisness model was built on hoovering up
| and selling access to user data in the form of AdSense.
| Without that data, their business falls apart.
|
| Apple's business model is to entice people into a walled
| garden ecosystem where they buy lots of expensive
| hardware sold on high margins. They don't need user data
| to make this work, which is why they can more comfortably
| push features like end-to-end and no-knowledge
| encryption.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| Google was cool, once upon a time, but they always used
| your personal info pretty openly. The CEO a himself
| famously said, "The Google policy on a lot of things is
| to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
|
| Apple has taken a markedly different approach, and has
| done so for years - E2E encryption, hashing and
| segmenting routes on maps, Secure Enclave, etc.
|
| While I think it's perfectly reasonable to "trust no
| one", and I fully agree that there may be things we don't
| know, I don't think there it's reasonable to put Apple on
| the same (exceedingly low) level as Google.
| cchance wrote:
| No they never were, they were "do no evil" but at the
| exact same time everyone knew they were an advertising
| company and most people in the field could see where it
| was heading eventually, or at least i'd hope.
|
| Apples motives are different, selling premium hardware
| and MORE premium hardware, they wouldn't dare fuck that
| up, their nestegg is hardware and slowly more services
| tied to said hardware ecosystem (icloud subs, tv subs
| etc). Hence the privacy makes sense to pull people into
| the ecosystem.
|
| Google... everything google does even phones, is for more
| data gathering for their advertising revenue.
| babypuncher wrote:
| The difference is Apple and OpenAI's privacy policies.
| cchance wrote:
| #2 is publicaly auditable, 100% apple controlled and apple
| hardware servers, tied to your personal session (probably via
| the ondevice encryption), i'd imagine ephemeral docker
| containers or something similar for requests that just run
| for each request or some form of Encrypted AI Lambdas.
| spike021 wrote:
| It sounded like 3 is meant for non-personal stuff. Basically
| like a search engine style feature. When you want to look up
| things like say sports records and info, or a movie and info
| about it, etc.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I don't know how they are going to square the privacy circle
| when at worst its a RAG based firehose to OpenAI, and at best
| you can just ask the model to leak your personal info.
| DaveChurchill wrote:
| Great! How do I opt out?
| the_arun wrote:
| Wouldn't this reduce sales for Grammerly? If Apple packs the same
| feature for every application in iOS, it is kinda cool.
|
| Private Cloud - Isn't this what Amazon did with their tablet -
| Fire? What is the difference with Apple Private Cloud?
| nehal3m wrote:
| > Wouldn't this reduce sales for Grammerly?
|
| There's a term for that, it's called being Sherlocked:
| https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when-a-co...
| gherkinnn wrote:
| After years and years of annoying ads, Grammarly taking a hit
| is the least they deserve
| terramex wrote:
| > Wouldn't this reduce sales for Grammerly?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software)#Sherlocked...
|
| > Sherlocked as a term
|
| > The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or
| obviates third-party software is so well known that being
| Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and
| iOS developer community.[2][3][4]
| thisarticle wrote:
| 1Password too.
| jerbear4328 wrote:
| Well, the Passwords app is just the Passwords section in
| Settings moved out into its own app. It already exists on
| Windows, too, but maybe they are updating it to allow
| autofill without using a Chrome extension or add other
| features. It isn't the biggest change, just bringing
| attention to an existing feature that already competes with
| 1Password et al.
| cueo wrote:
| It would be good if they add support for third-party
| browsers. Bitwarden (or other apps) can feel clunky
| sometimes compared to Keychain / Passwords.
| kfinley wrote:
| Which browser are you using?
|
| I switched to Apple Passwords and have been using the
| official Chrome extension for a few months. It's not as
| seamless as some of the password manager extensions, but
| has been working well enough.
|
| https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/icloud-
| passwords/pe...
| xnx wrote:
| Grammarly is great example of the classic adage, "a feature,
| not a product".
| secfirstmd wrote:
| TBH I'd say the same about Notion.
| PodgieTar wrote:
| It jumped out to me that I had to highlight and ask it to check
| my grammar, rather than have it be an automatic process.
|
| I don't use Grammarly, really, but I think at least that one is
| more automatic?
| tomjen3 wrote:
| How many use Grammerly on a Mac exclusively? My guess is that
| most of their accounts are students through schools and
| companies. But yeah, there is a risk in any business that a
| better competitor comes along.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I would not bet on Grammerly's future.
| TechnicolorByte wrote:
| Have to say, I was thoroughly impressed by what Apple showed
| today with all this Personal AI stuff. And it proves that the
| real power of consumer AI will be in the hands of the platform
| owners where you have most of your digital life in already (Apple
| or Google for messaging, mail, photos, apps; Microsoft for work
| and/or life).
|
| The way Siri can now perform actions based on context from emails
| and messages like setting calendar and reservations or asking
| about someone's flight is so useful (can't tell you how many
| times my brother didn't bother to check the flight code I sent
| him via message when he asks me when I'm landing for pickup!).
|
| I always saw this level of personal intelligence to come about at
| some point, but I didn't expect Apple to hit it out of the park
| so strongly. Benefit of drawing people into their ecosystem.
|
| Nevermind all the thought put into private cloud, integration
| with ChatGPT, the image generation playground, and Genmoji. I can
| genuinely see all this being useful for "the rest of us," to
| quote Craig. As someone who's taken a pessimistic view of Apple
| software innovation the last several years, I'm amazed.
|
| One caveat: the image generation of real people was super uncanny
| and made me uncomfortable. I would not be happy to receive one of
| those cold and impersonal, low-effort images as a birthday wish.
| imabotbeep2937 wrote:
| "brother didn't bother to check the flight code I sent him via
| message when he asks me when I'm landing for pickup"
|
| Yeah but what about people going to the wrong airport, or
| getting scammed by taking fake information uncritically? "Well
| it worked for me and anyway AI will get better.". Amen.
| lancesells wrote:
| Even moreso why does brother take the time to bring up Siri
| if he can't read the flight code? It's the same thing
| correct?
| cchance wrote:
| You do know siri works while driving and other times when
| you don't want to go fumbling around?
| gavmor wrote:
| > the platform owners where you have most of your digital life
|
| Yup! The hardest part of operationalizing GenAI has been, for
| me, dragging the "ring" of my context under the light cast by
| "streetlamp" of the model. Just writing this analogy out makes
| me think I might be putting the cart before the horse.
| rootveg wrote:
| Whenever I read that expression I have to think about the
| Porsche commercial from a few years back. I guess it's not
| always a bad idea :)
|
| https://assets.horsenation.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2014/07/dw...
| zer00eyz wrote:
| The UI design part? The integration part? The iteration part?
|
| Apple products tend to feel thoughtful. It might not be a
| thought you agree with, but it's there.
|
| With other companies I feel like im starving, and all they
| are serving is their version of grule... Here is your helping
| be sure to eat all of it.
| dereg wrote:
| Apple Intelligence stuff is going to be very big. iOS is
| clearly the right platform to marry great UX AI with. Latching
| LLMs onto Siri have allowed the Siri team to quickly atone for
| its sins.
|
| I think the private compute stuff to be really big. Beyond the
| obvious use the cloud servers for heavy computing type tasks, I
| suspect it means we're going to get our own private code
| interpreter (proper scripting on iOS) and this is probably
| Apple's path to eventually allowing development on iPad OS.
|
| Not only that, Apple is using its own chips for their servers.
| I don't think the follow on question is whether it's enough or
| not. The right question to ask is what are they going to do
| bring things up to snuff with NVDIA on both the developer end
| and hardware end?
|
| There's such a huge play here and I don't think people get it
| yet, all because they think that Apple should be in the
| frontier model game. I think I now understand the headlines of
| Nadella being worried about Apple's partnership with OpenAI.
| wayeq wrote:
| > allowed the Siri team to quickly atone for its sins.
|
| Are we sure there is a Siri team in Apple? What have they
| been doing since 2012?
| dereg wrote:
| Learning how to write llm function calls.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| I don't get this at all, how does integrating siri with a llm
| mean you get an interpreter and allowing development?
| hmottestad wrote:
| As much as I hoped for Xcode on the iPad, I still don't
| think any of this AI stuff or "private cloud" is related.
|
| Though I don't know if I would use my iPad for programming
| even if it was possible, when I have a powerful Macbook Pro
| with a larger screen.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > can't tell you how many times my brother didn't bother to
| check the flight code I sent him via message
|
| The story to this is that Messages is so god awful that the
| most basic things like search do not work.
|
| > but I didn't expect Apple to hit it out of the park so
| strongly.
|
| If they were sincere about this, they would let people choose
| which AI model should get access to your abbreviated text and
| image context sent for inference. AKA there would be a way to
| choose backends. The signature for such a thing would be like
| 200 lines of OpenAPI specs, which is very, very short.
|
| The most user positive thing would be, just like with messages,
| browsers, e-mail clients, etc: You get to choose who provides
| the service. The instruct models are _completely_ fungible. Why
| be coerced into using Apple 's, which will inevitably suck?
| crooked-v wrote:
| To me, everything about how it's been presented so far says
| the point of how it's set up is that they don't _want_ to use
| backends. They want everything to happen on device. Even
| having ChatGPT for expanded queries is an unfortunate
| necessity driven by the hardware not being powerful enough
| yet.
|
| How much is run entirely on device so far is unclear, but the
| sessions later in the day should expand on that.
| viscanti wrote:
| On device or in an Apple owned DC. It sounds like they have
| aspirations for their own Apple owned LLM. ChatGPT seems
| like it's there until they can get something good enough to
| generally replace it for cases where their in-house
| solution isn't capable enough yet. They likely continue to
| invest heavily on big capable LLMs as well as ones that are
| small enough to run on device (while working on the
| hardware side to ensure they have the device capabilities
| to run more powerful models on the device).
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The benefit of owning the last mile to the customer is
| that you can choose when you want to replace default
| Maps, or not.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| So, the company that brought us Siri is going to build
| something better than ChatGPT... something that will run
| on-device no less. It's just not quite ready yet. Got it.
| nasmorn wrote:
| Siri was quite impressive when it came out. I just felt
| it never got significantly better until it became an
| embarrassment
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| > AKA there would be a way to choose backends.
|
| I think the percentage of iPhone users for who this would
| matter is very small. It's similar to how many people care
| about using a different browser than Safari on iOS (or Chrome
| on Google): in the US at least, those two browsers have ~95%
| market share.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| > I think the percentage of iPhone users for who this would
| matter is very small.
|
| Oh yeah? Then why don't they permit you to choose an App
| Store, a browser, a messenger, a blah blah blah...
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| You can set the default browser.
|
| And there are plenty of messaging apps on iOS.
|
| App store, sure, they don't allow sideloading, but that's
| a different matter (and the number of users, not devs,
| who care about that is even smaller)
| Miraste wrote:
| You can only change your browser in the EU, since three
| months ago, because of their consumer protection laws.
|
| In all other countries, the "browsers" on the App Store
| are only skins on top of a crippled version of Safari.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I'm in the US. I can set the default browser on my iPhone
| to Chrome, right in the Safari settings.
| flutas wrote:
| > I can set the default browser on my iPhone to Chrome,
| right in the Safari settings.
|
| You can set your browser to a Chrome _UI wrapper around a
| Safari Webview_. You can do this with any [browser] UI
| wrapper around a Safari Webview, as long as [browser] has
| received the relevant entitlement from Apple.[0]
|
| Outside of the EU, all browser apps on iOS _must_ run
| Safari 's engine.[1]
|
| [0]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/Xcode/prep
| aring-yo...
|
| > Request the default browser entitlement by filling out
| the Default browser entitlement request form. If your
| request is accepted you get both the default browser
| entitlement, and the com.apple.developer.browser.app-
| installation entitlement. If you have the default browser
| entitlement, fill out this form to receive the app-
| installation entitlement for your browser app.
|
| [1]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browsereng
| inekit
|
| > Important: To distribute an app that uses an
| alternative browser engine, you need to request the
| relevant entitlements for your developer account. For
| more information and to request the entitlements, see
| Using alternative browser engines _in the European
| Union._
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| I understand the X wrapper on Safari engine, and I don't
| believe most people care about the underlying engine.
| Just like Microsoft Edge just being a Chromium browser,
| most people don't seem to care.
| endisneigh wrote:
| Seems like a silly gripe - why not buy android and have
| it all?
| themadturk wrote:
| But...I can't have Safari on Android!
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| I don't comprehend why people feel like being a Safari
| wrapper is sufficient.
|
| How do people imagine ad blockers get implemented? Why do
| they assume ad blockers will be supported by Apple, which
| once ran an ad network and runs an ad network in Apple
| News, forever?
|
| If publishers wanted to support only ad-block-blocking
| browsers, that's their prerogative too! I don't either
| think Apple should get to decide that ads are protected
| if you appear in Apple News, but ads are not protected if
| you appear in Mobile Safari.
|
| People opposing choice: it _never_ ceases to surprise me.
| ses1984 wrote:
| You can set any browser you want as long as it's a skin
| on top of safari.
| skhunted wrote:
| I don't follow your second to last paragraph. It's called
| Apple Intelligence. If you want to use something else do so
| but don't expect Apple to build its own product and let you
| use whatever you want for it. Clearly the goal for Apple is
| to eventually use its own models and be an entirely in house
| product.
| talldayo wrote:
| > Clearly the goal for Apple is to eventually use its own
| models and be an entirely in house product.
|
| If that turns out anything like Siri, then surely you would
| understand why people want a bring-your-own-model
| framework.
| skhunted wrote:
| Their desires may or may not be rational in this but
| clearly Apple isn't going to allow it. They have a
| history of doing their own thing.
| talldayo wrote:
| Their desires are expressly illegal, in many countries.
| We're past the whole antitrust stuff now, we are in a
| post-FAANG society and Apple doesn't just get away with
| that stuff for free anymore. I'm not crazy for expecting
| competition.
|
| This is also coincidentally the reason I got rid of my
| Apple products. The experience _fucking sucks!_ The only
| way things get better is if you buy more hardware, which
| probably makes the average mall-addicted American smile
| but makes me want to vomit. Everything is upsell, and not
| _just_ upsell where you can improve the experience. No,
| you have to buy _Apple 's_ solution because every third-
| party is wrong and can't be trusted. They will gimp
| anyone that does not compensate them handsomely and rob
| the only people brave enough to offer their users an
| improved experience. The devil takes notes during Tim
| Cook's business meetings. They deserve everything coming
| to them, and they know it too.
|
| So try it. Watch them go along, "doing their own thing",
| and then watch them come back limping and bruised after
| the FTC gives them a worse beating than Microsoft got in
| the 90s. We _know_ why Apple is mad about this, it doesn
| 't matter. They can go quietly or we can make this a
| long, protracted process. Microsoft got away lucky when
| you think about it, still all in one piece.
| skhunted wrote:
| Sure. I'm agnostic in all this but I do think Apple
| prefers to build their own AI and worry about anti-trust
| later.
| talldayo wrote:
| How can you "worry about anti-trust later" when you are
| under active anticompetitive inquiry from three of your
| largest markets?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| I don't comprehend how people are not more angry about
| how utterly shitty the Apple coerced apps are.
| kdot wrote:
| I see the goal as a setup to pit LLM providers against each
| other to pay 10B a year to be the 2nd tap default.
| skhunted wrote:
| Oh, yeah that is a possibility. I think though long term
| they are going to have Siri be a search engine that
| actually works in the way Google once did.
| amelius wrote:
| What do you mean into hands of platform owners? The point of
| having an Apple device is that you can run stuff on your
| device. The user is in control, not any platforms.
| gowld wrote:
| Apple owns the software platform. Can I run my non-Apple
| Intelligence software on the data in "my" iPhone?
| jagger27 wrote:
| They did mention they're adding support for other
| providers.
| alwillis wrote:
| Of course. There will be plenty of APIs that 3rd parties
| can use access the same data Apple Intelligence has access
| to.
| Tagbert wrote:
| Apple owns the platform. The user owns the device that
| embodies the platform.
| croes wrote:
| >Private Cloud Compute
|
| But it runs in their cloud.
| verdverm wrote:
| I take it as 3rd party alternatives will have a much harder
| time because they have to ask the user to share their data
| with them. Apple / Google already have that established
| relationship and 3rd parties will unlikely have the level of
| integration and simplicity that the platformers can deliver.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| I think what they're getting at is that the platform owners
| have power because they can actually leverage the data that
| users give them to be useful tools to those users.
|
| I would contrast this with the trend over the last year of
| just adding a chatbot to every app, or Recall being just a
| spicy History function. It's AI without doing anything
| useful.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > The way Siri can now perform actions based on context from
| emails and messages like setting calendar and reservations
|
| I can't think of something less exciting than a feature that
| Gmail has supported for a decade.
|
| Overall there's not a single feature in the article that I find
| exciting (I don't use Siri at all, so maybe it's just me), but
| I actually see that as a good thing. The least they add GenAI
| the better.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| The difference is that this is on-device and private. Gmail
| just feeds your emails to Google's servers and they do the
| crunching. And in the meanwhile train their systems to be
| better using your content.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| It changes nothing about the impressiveness (or lack
| thereof) of the feature.
|
| Detecting an appointment from an email doesn't even require
| AI.
|
| You're also over-indexing on the fact that some processing
| will be done on device. The rest will go to Apple's servers
| just the same as Google. And you will never know how much
| goes or doesn't.
| chipotle_coyote wrote:
| Apple Mail has been able to detect appointments and
| reservations from email for years, just like Gmail -- and
| at least in my experience, Apple Mail pulls more useful
| information out of the mail when it creates the calendar
| entry. What they showed today is, in theory, something
| different. (I presume the difference is integrating it
| _into the Siri assistant,_ not the mail application.)
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _I always saw this level of personal intelligence to come
| about at some point, but I didn't expect Apple to hit it out of
| the park so strongly. Benefit of drawing people into their
| ecosystem._
|
| It's the benefit of how Apple does product ownership. In
| contrast to Google and Microsoft.
|
| I hadn't considered it, but AI convergence is going to lay bare
| organizational deficiencies in a way previous revolutions
| didn't.
|
| Nobody wants a GenAI _feature_ that works in Gmail, a different
| one that works in Messages, etc. -- they want a platform
| _capability_ that works anywhere they use text.
|
| I'm not sure either Google or Microsoft are organizationally-
| capable of delivering that, at this point.
| epolanski wrote:
| Why wouldn't Microsoft be able to?
|
| Anyway, while I see all of your points, none of the things
| I've read in the news make me excited. Recapping meetings or
| long emails or suggesting how to write are just...not major
| concerns to me at least.
| kelsey98765431 wrote:
| "Anyone serious about software should be making their own
| hardware - Alan Kay" - Steve Jobs
| sunaookami wrote:
| >Why wouldn't Microsoft be able to?
|
| https://crmtipoftheday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ms-
| org...
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I've heard Microsoft has gotten better, but I think this
| still rings true. https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/
| comments/6jw33z/int...
| dagw wrote:
| _Why wouldn 't Microsoft be able to?_
|
| Microsoft seems to have lost all internal cohesion and the
| ability to focus the entire company in one direction. It's
| just a collection of dozens of small fiefdoms only caring
| about hitting their own narrow KPIs with no overall
| strategic vision. Just look at the mess of competing
| interest that Windows 11 and Edge have turned into.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| + Teams, which includes a feature to build entire apps...
| inside Teams.
| Onawa wrote:
| Oh God, when my partner started exploring using Power
| Apps for Teams to build a platform for running a clinical
| study, I was intrigued... Then horrified as I tried to
| help her get it setup. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/power-apps/teams/create-fi...
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Maybe it's just my overly-cynical ass but when the parent
| comment said Teams+ lets you build apps inside Teams, I
| physically shuddered.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 'We call it Apps for Teams Live 365+!'
| mlinsey wrote:
| The flip side, is that they would not have been able to
| execute so well with Azure etc if the Windows org had too
| much of a say about pushing Windows as the OS of choice
| everywhere. Winning in a brand new space, especially one
| that might be disruptive to other business units,
| sometimes necessitates letting the new org do its own
| thing.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Yeah, it's hard to believe that VSCode and Windows are
| products from the same company. Very different vibes.
| vundercind wrote:
| They can't even get marketing on the same page, such that
| they counter-productively confuse the hell out of _their
| customers_ who might be _considering giving them more
| money_.
|
| Quick, what's "copilot"?
| prewett wrote:
| Automates the tedious/boring parts of flying between
| regions in Microsoft Flight Simulator. On higher
| difficulty levels, can use voice recognition to accept
| tasks ("Copilot, we are losing fuel, find the nearest
| airport we can land at", "Copilot, what is the VFR
| frequency for the airport?", etc.) Sometimes
| misunderstands tasks and/or will give erroneous
| information, to increase fidelity to real-world
| situations.
| joking wrote:
| > Why wouldn't Microsoft be able to?
|
| they are irrelevant on the mobile ecosystem, a place where
| almost all this features are most relevant and useful
| themadturk wrote:
| >suggesting how to write
|
| As a(n amateur) fiction writer who pays too much for
| ProWritingAid each year, I'd love to see if this feature is
| any good for fiction. I take very, very few of PWA's AI-
| suggested rewrites, but they often help me see my own new
| version of a bit of prose.
| vjulian wrote:
| Could you please explain 'lay bare organisational
| deficiencies'? I ask without skepticism.
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| I assume they mean: expose internal corporate silos/VP-
| fiefdoms that don't work seamlessly together despite being
| marketed under the same brand
| dmix wrote:
| Google is quite notorious for having this issue from
| various blog posts and HN comments I've read.
|
| Lots of middle management power groups that would prevent
| a cohesive top down vision from easily being adopted.
| ljm wrote:
| The same as any enterprise company. It's all office
| politics and bureaucracy.
|
| Make no mistake, Google is Enterprise.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Most companies don't have an unified platform they can
| build this on. And even if they seem to have superficially,
| the internal organisation is so splintered that it'll never
| happen.
|
| Like what's going on inside Google, it's getting stupidly
| political and infighty. If someone tries to build a
| comprehensive LLM that touches on gmail, youtube, docs,
| sheets etc, it's going to be an uphill battle.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| And even if they did, there'd be five competing efforts,
| two would be good or at least decent, four would be
| deployed (not the best one though), and all would be
| replaced in three years.
|
| None of them would work on-device, all would leak your
| data into the training set.
| sakisv wrote:
| They did do that. Back in 2013-2015 or so. It was called
| Google Now, and it was a bit like magic.
|
| It showed you contextual cards based on your upcoming
| trips/appointments/traveling patterns. E.g. Any tube
| delays on your way home from work. How early you should
| leave to catch your flight.
|
| This alongside Google Inbox was among the best and most
| "futuristic" products.
|
| I was glad to see today Apple implementing something
| similar to both of these.
| simonh wrote:
| But it was a decent new Google product, hence all the
| past tenses.
| jbl0ndie wrote:
| I've always been baffled why those two got canned. They
| were both really useful.
| TreetopPlace wrote:
| "AI convergence is going to lay bare organizational
| deficiencies in a way previous revolutions didn't`'
|
| Your quote really hit me. I _trust_ Apple to respect my
| privacy when doing AI, but the thought of Microsoft or Google
| slurping up all my data to do remote-server AI is abhorrent.
| I can 't see how Microsoft or Google can undo the last 10
| years to fix this.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| > I trust Apple to respect my privacy when doing AI
|
| Ouch. That's literally a painful thing to read.
|
| But hey, the computer wants you to be happy. Happiness is
| mandatory.
| practicemaths wrote:
| "Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of
| the Information Purification Directives. We have created,
| for the first time in all history, a garden of pure
| ideology--where each worker may bloom, secure from the
| pests purveying contradictory thoughts. Our Unification
| of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or
| army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one
| resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to
| death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We
| shall prevail!"
| cchance wrote:
| Have to agree, apple seems to put a really strong emphasis
| above all else on your shit is your shit and we don't want
| to see it.
| parl_match wrote:
| For what it's worth, those platform investments are the
| difference between Apple being applauded for this, and
| Microsoft being pilloried for Recall's deficiencies.
| ManuelKiessling wrote:
| It's ironic how the one company that is WAY over the top wrt
| secrecy -- not only to the public, but also and especially
| internally (they've even walled the hardware team from the
| software team while developing the iPhone!) -- is at the same
| time the one company that really nails integration.
| xethos wrote:
| People will scoff and say "Yeah, but all kinds of companies
| have internal firewalls, big deal". But no, these were
| literal walls that would appear over a weekend and suddenly
| part of the campus was off-limits to those not on the
| iPhone project.
| kolinko wrote:
| Wow. Any place to read about that?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| The key difference is that Apple (as an organization)
| appears to have an overarching roadmap (that spans multiple
| product lines). The secrecy is irrelevant as long as the
| leadership of each division is aligned (it hurts, but does
| not prevent success). Google, MS, and others are less
| organized at the top, so subdivisions of the overall org
| are left to plan for themselves and between each other,
| which leads to conflicts. Resolution may be achieved when
| things get pushed high enough, but only if it surfaces at
| the top for a leader (if such people exist in their org
| structure) to declare a resolution and focus for the groups
| involved.
| highwaylights wrote:
| Ironically, I feel like Apple might have lost me as a
| customer today. It won't matter to Apple, obviously, but so
| much of what they showed today I just felt was actively
| pushing me out of the ecosystem.
|
| I first bought some devices for myself, then those devices
| got handed off to family when I upgraded, and now we're at a
| point where we still use all of the devices we bought to date
| - but the arbitrary obsolescence hammer came down fairly hard
| today with the intel cut-off and the iPhone 15+ requirement
| for the AI features. This isn't new for Apple, they've been
| aging perfectly usable devices out of support for years.
| We'll be fine for now, but patch support is only partial for
| devices on less-than-latest major releases so I likely need
| to replace a lot of stuff in the next couple of years and it
| would be way too expensive to do this whole thing again. I'll
| also really begrudge doing it, as the devices we have suit us
| just fine.
|
| Some of it I can live without (most of the AI features they
| showed today), but for the parts that are sending off to the
| cloud anyway it just feels really hard to pretend it's
| anything other than trying to force upgrades people would be
| happy without. OCLP has done a good job for a couple of
| homework Macs, I might see about Windows licenses for those
| when they finally stop getting patches.
|
| I'd feel worse for anyone that bought the Intel Mac Pro last
| year before it got taken off sale (although I'm not sure how
| many did). That's got to really feel like a kick in the teeth
| given the price of those things.
| methodical wrote:
| While I mostly agree with your point of Apple being rather
| aggressive with forced upgrading, I don't think the device
| requirements for these features were based solely on the
| desire to push out people with older devices, but rather
| due to the hardware requirements for a lot of the ML/AI
| features being based on the Apple Silicon, at least for the
| Mac side of things. As to why they drew the line at the
| iPhone 15, perhaps it's a similar reason regarding
| performance requirements. While obviously, I'm not
| intimately knowledgeable of their basis for the device
| requirements, I'd wait a few more years to see how the
| device requirements for these new features cascade. If they
| continue requiring newer and newer devices, only supporting
| the trailing generation or so, then I'd agree
| wholeheartedly with your sentiment.
| guhcampos wrote:
| I'm with you here. As a proud owner of an iPhone 13 Mini,
| I refuse to switch to anything bigger than that, but I do
| concede that any moderately useful AI pipeline will
| require more power than my aging phone is capable to
| provide.
| hmottestad wrote:
| From rumours of Apple buying lots of GPUs from Nvidia not
| that long ago I think management got a nice little scare
| when OpenAI released GPT-3.5 and then GPT-4. It takes
| several years to bring a CPU to market. Apple probably
| realised far too late that they needed specific features in
| their SOCs to handle the new AI stuff, so it wasn't
| included in anything before the A17 Pro. For the M1, M2 and
| M3 I believe that Apple is willing to sacrifice heat and
| battery to achieve what they want. The A17 Pro is probably
| very efficient at running LLMs so it can do so in a phone
| with a small battery and terrible thermal performance. For
| their Macs and iPads with M1, M2, M3 they will just run the
| LLMs on the AMX or the GPU cores and use more power and
| produce more heat.
|
| Could also be a memory problem. The A17 Pro in the iPhone
| 15 Pro comes with 8 GB of memory while everything before
| that has 6 GB or less. All machines with the M1 or newer
| come with at least 8 GB of memory.
|
| PS: The people who bought the Intel Mac Pro after the M1
| was released knew very well what they were getting into.
| jwr wrote:
| Apple started including the neural engine back with A11
| Bionic. In 2017.
| talldayo wrote:
| And at .6 TOP/second of performance, that Neural Engine
| is practically useless today. You can go buy a $50
| Rockchip board with an NPU 10x faster.
|
| Which introduces a funny aspect, of the whole NPU/TPU
| thing. There's a constant stairstepping in capability;
| the newer models improving only obsoletes older ones
| faster. It's a bit of a design paradox.
| themadturk wrote:
| It's odd...I've gotten along fine without AI in my iPhone
| 13, and it will continue to work just as I have come to
| expect with the new iOS.
|
| The new AI features will be available on the iPad Air I
| just ordered, and on my M1 MacBook Air, and I'll be able to
| play with them there until I'm ready to upgrade my phone. I
| think these new features sound great, but I'm not in any
| hurry to adopt them wholesale.
| cchance wrote:
| I mean, your pushed out to what? Lol your acting like
| android doesn't obsolete the shit out of their past cycle
| phones. I don't really get what you wanted them to do here,
| they're deploying AI in the OS and ecosystem where they can
| and the features that the hardware supports are being
| brought in, i don't see where they're implementing features
| that the hardware supports and are blocking "because"... I
| don't think anywhere they clarified what part of the cloud
| tools wont work on older versions. But at the end of the
| day old hardware is old... its not gonna support everything
| especially on generational shifts like how much better arm
| was over intel, or the fact that NPU's don't just manifest
| inside of old silicon
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| That's actually exactly what you want. No one company should
| know what you do on all apps.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| >I always saw this level of personal intelligence to come about
| at some point, but I didn't expect Apple to hit it out of the
| park so strongly
|
| That's a little premature, let's try not to be so suckered by
| marketing.
| Damogran6 wrote:
| It's the potential for the model. Everyone else is hoovering
| the internet to model everything and Apple is sticking with
| their privacy message and saying 'how can I model your stuff
| to help you.'
|
| That's tangibly different.
| bboygravity wrote:
| I beg to differ.
|
| Example that should be super trivial: try to setup a sync
| of photos taken on your Iphone to a laptop (Mac or Windows
| or Linux) without going through Apple's cloud or any other
| cloud?
|
| With an Android phone and Windows laptop (for example) you
| simply install the Syncthing app on both and you're done.
|
| My point is not "Apple is worse", instead I'm just trying
| to point out that Apple definitely seems eager to have
| their users push a lot of what they do through their cloud.
| I don't see why their AI will be any different, even if
| their marketing now claims that it will be "offline" or
| whatever.
| Damogran6 wrote:
| iCloud synchronizes all my stuff between all my devices
| (windows too) now. They've always been privacy-forward. I
| could completely see a container that spins up and AI's
| my stuff in their datacenter, that they don't have
| visibility into. The impact of them getting it wrong is
| pretty significant.
| labcomputer wrote:
| > Example that should be super trivial: try to setup a
| sync of photos taken on your Iphone to a laptop (Mac or
| Windows or Linux) without going through Apple's cloud or
| any other cloud?
|
| The first hit on Google makes it look trivial with iPhone
| too?
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/devices-windows/sync-
| photos-...
|
| > With an Android phone and Windows laptop (for example)
| you simply install the Syncthing app on both and you're
| done.
|
| And with iPhone you just install the "Apple Devices" app:
| https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9np83lwlpz9k
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Apple is again going where Google (the world's largest ad
| company) cannot follow: 100% user privacy.
|
| They really hammered in the fact that every bit is going to
| be either fully local or publicly auditable to be private.
|
| There's no way Google can follow, they need the data for
| their ad modeling. Even if they anonymise it, they still want
| it.
| Spod_Gaju wrote:
| "100% user privacy."
|
| That is a huge stretch and a signal as to how good Apple is
| with their marketing.
|
| If they are still letting apps like GasBuddy to sell your
| location to insurance companies then they are no where near
| "100% privacy".
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Why should apple be in control of what individual apps do
| with your location data? You explicitly grant the app
| access to your data, and agreed to the terms.
|
| The difference between that and this is extremely clear
| is it not?
| its_ethan wrote:
| GasBuddy is an optional app, right? Apple is very up
| front about what apps are going to get access to things
| like location, with user prompts to allow/deny. Meaning
| you are opting in to a lack of privacy, which is very
| expected behavior?
|
| The default Apple apps (maps, messaging, safari) are
| solid from a privacy perspective, and I don't think you
| can say the same about the default apps on competitors
| phones.
| themadturk wrote:
| Gas Buddy, like all 3rd party apps, has their privacy
| practices detailed on their App Store page. It's true
| that not all vendors are completely truthful with this
| information, but Gas Buddy (for one) appears to be pretty
| up-front: everything in the app is shared with the
| developers or others except (they say) diagnostic
| information. Apple set up a privacy-disclosure rule, Gas
| Buddy seems to be following it, and it's the user's
| choice whether to install Gas Buddy.
|
| Apple has done its privacy work here; now it's up to the
| end user to make the final choice.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| They literally announced their partnership with OpenAI
| today, and I've seen no sign of this data being "publicly
| auditable" - can you share this with me?
| cchance wrote:
| WTF are you talking about, the guy literally said that to
| connect to Apple Intelligence servers the client side
| verifies a publically registered audit trail for the
| server. He then followed up saying no data on chatgpt
| will keep session information regarding who the data came
| from.
|
| Apples big thing is privacy, i doubt they'd randomly lie
| about that
| cromka wrote:
| This still runs on external hardware which can be spoofed
| at the demand of authorities. It may be private as in
| they themselves won't monetize it but your data certainly
| won't be safe
| labcomputer wrote:
| > I've seen no sign of this data being "publicly
| auditable" - can you share this with me?
|
| They announced it in the same keynote where they
| announced the partnership with OpenAI (and stated that
| sharing your data with OpenAI would be opt-in, not opt-
| out).
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/
| pmarreck wrote:
| > The way Siri can now perform actions based on context
|
| Given that this will apparently drop... next year at the
| earliest?... I think it's simply quite a tease, for now.
|
| I literally had to install a keyboard extension to my iPhone
| just to get Whisper speech to text, which is thousands of times
| better at dictation than Siri at this point, which seems about
| 10 years behind the curve
| QuinnyPig wrote:
| Ooh, which keyboard extension is this?
| Loveaway wrote:
| Some of it will undoubtly be super useful. Things like:
|
| - Proofread button in mail.
|
| - ChatGPT will be available in Apple's systemwide Writing Tools
| in macOS
|
| I expect once you'll get used to it, it'll be hard to go
| without it.
| constantcrying wrote:
| I do believe much of what they showed was impressive. It
| actually seems to realize the "personal digital secretary"
| promise that personal computing devices throughout the decades
| were sold on.
|
| The most important question to me is how reliable it is. Does
| it work _every time_ or is there some chance that it horribly
| misinterprets the content and even embarrasses the user who
| trusted it.
| dom96 wrote:
| Yeah, reliability is the crucial bit. Like that example he
| showed where it checked whether he can make an appointment
| (by checking driving times), a lot can go wrong there and if
| the assistant tells you "Yes, you can" but you cannot then I
| can see lots of people getting angry and not trusting it for
| anything.
| MetaWhirledPeas wrote:
| >The way Siri can now perform actions based on context from
| emails
|
| I did not see the announcement. Can Siri also _send_ emails? If
| so then won 't this (like Gemini) be vulnerable to prompt
| injection attacks?
|
| Edit: Supposedly Gemini does not actually _send_ the emails;
| maybe Apple is doing the same thing?
| dudus wrote:
| It doesn't look like it does. It seems to only write the
| email for you but not send. At least yet.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It just writes the content, it doesn't actually send
| anything.
|
| We'll find out later if there's an API to do something like
| that at all or are external communications always behind some
| hard limit that requires explicit user interaction.
| b33j0r wrote:
| I will believe it when siri isn't the stupidest decade old idea
| ever. I'm sorry if I sound anything but snarky, but they have
| had Star Trek abilities this whole time, nerfed for "safety"
| and platform product integrity --from my iPhone
| tonyabracadabra wrote:
| The image generation is dalle 2.5 level and feels really greasy
| to me, beyond that I think the overall launch is pretty good! I
| also congratulate rabbit r1 for their timely release months
| before WWDC https://heymusic.ai/music/apple-intel-fEoSb
| wwalexander wrote:
| Yeah, the image generation felt really...cheap?...tasteless?
| but everything else was really impressive.
| tonyabracadabra wrote:
| I think that basically stretched the limit of what local
| model can achieve today, which also makes their image API
| almost useless for any serious generative art developers.
| mholm wrote:
| Personalization really feels like the missing link here.
| The images it creates are highly contextual, which
| increases their value dramatically. Nobody on Reddit wants
| to see the AI generated T. rex with a tutu on a surfboard,
| but in a group chat where your dancer buddy Rex is learning
| to surf, it's a killer. The image AI can even use photos to
| learn who a person is. That opens up a ton of cool ways to
| communicate with friends
| cchance wrote:
| It's what i expected they weren't going to open the
| pandoras box of realistic photogen on imessage lol, thats
| why the limit to illustration, cartoon etc, is there to
| limit the liability of it going wild, they can add more
| "types" later as they get things more tested, realistically
| its just prompts hidden behind bubbles, but allows them to
| slowly roll out options that they've heavily vetted.
| thomasahle wrote:
| The generated image of two dice
| (https://x.com/thomasahle/status/1800258720074490245) was
| dalle 1 level.
|
| Just randomly sprinkled eyes on the sides. I wonder why they
| chose to showcase that.
| paganel wrote:
| > but I didn't expect Apple to hit it out of the park so
| strongly.
|
| No-one is hitting anything out of the park, this is just Apple
| the company realising that they're falling behind and trying to
| desperately attach themselves to the AI train. Doesn't matter
| if in so doing they're validating a company run by basically a
| swindler (I'm talking about the current OpenAI and Sam Altman),
| the Apple shareholders must be kept happy.
| Jayakumark wrote:
| Google is doing this as well but they are doing it on single
| app like gmail assuming all info is there and also across
| websites with agents but not cross apps like apple is doing
| across mails, messages, maps etc.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| 100%. Based on what I've seen so far, unified context is
| king.
|
| Which at the backend means unifying necessary data from
| different product silos, into organized and usable sources.
| cchance wrote:
| Not to mention tied into their underlying SDK API that
| basically the whole system is based on, and seems they are
| using those same API's for the internal integrations so they
| can feel whats missing themselves as well.
| richardw wrote:
| I've been waiting for Apple to arrive. They bring so much
| polish and taste.
|
| Two features I really want:
|
| "Position the cursor at the beginning of the word 'usability'"
|
| "Stop auto suggesting that word. I never use it, ever"
| Hippocrates wrote:
| The AI/Cartoony person being sent as a birthday wish was super
| cringey, like something my boomer father would send me. I'm a
| fan of genmoji. That looks fun. Less a fan of generated clip
| art and "images for the sake of having an image here", and way,
| way less into this "here, I made a cornball image of you from
| other images of you that I have" feature. It's as lame as
| Animoji but as creepy as deepfakes.
| wwalexander wrote:
| Yeah, the genmoji feel like a proper Apple feature, but the
| full images feel cheap and pointless.
| cchance wrote:
| LOL you haven't been in group chats with idiot drunk
| friends apparently shit like that kills, i had a friend who
| hates iphones, i sent a dozen bing ai images of him as a
| cartoon doing... things... to the phone... entire chat was
| dieing for days.
| discordance wrote:
| In the context of off-device processing, it's worth keeping in
| mind that US surveillance laws have recently expanded in their
| scope and reach:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/16/house-fisa-g...
| ENGNR wrote:
| For this reason, I really hope we can self-host our "private
| cloud" for use with apple devices. That would truly, properly
| allow end to end privacy. I don't trust Apple given the
| legislation you've just linked to, both claims obviously
| can't be correct.
| brundolf wrote:
| An interesting consequence: I started to think about how I'll
| be incentivized to take more pictures of useful information,
| and might even try setting up a Proton Mail proxy so I can use
| the iOS Email app and give Siri more context
| tomcam wrote:
| I'll be thoroughly impressed when Siri learns my wife's name
| for good. Yes, I trained it, but somehow the lesson was
| forgotten.
| nox101 wrote:
| I have no confidence this will work as intended. The last MacOS
| upgrade had the horrible UX of guessing which emoji you want
| and being wrong 95% of the time. I don't expect this to be any
| better. Demos are scripted.
|
| I also expect it to fail miserably on names (places,
| restaurants, train stations, people), people that are
| bilingual, non-English, people with strong accents from English
| not being their first language, etc.
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| Big partnership for OpenAI. Incredible Apple decided to integrate
| with a third party like this directly into the OS. This feels
| like something Apple could have executed well by themselves. I
| was hoping they weren't going to outsource but I suppose the
| rumors while they were shopping around were true.
|
| I think this further confirms that they think these AI services
| are a commodity that they don't feel a need to compete with for
| the time being.
| avtar wrote:
| > This feels like something Apple could have executed well by
| themselves. I was hoping they weren't going to outsource
|
| Who is to say they aren't eventually going to replace the
| OpenAI integration with an in-house solution later down the
| line? Apple Maps was released in 2012, before that they relied
| on Google Maps.
| r0m4n0 wrote:
| My bet is on an trial/acquisition if it works out. I guess
| that could be complicated with the current ownership
| structure
| Tagbert wrote:
| They seem to have kept the OpenAI integration to a minimum,
| only using it for requests that need large scale processing or
| for web trivia type of requests.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| And apparently via Siri, not as part of their other
| integrations. So you ask something, Siri suggests ChatGPT,
| you agree to send the prompt. It's not built into the other
| ML related capabilities.
| asimpletune wrote:
| Their demos looked like how I imagined AI before ChatGPT ever
| existed. It was a personalized, context aware, deeply integrated
| way of interacting with your whole system.
|
| I really enjoyed the explanation for how they planned on tackling
| server-enabled AI tasks while making the best possible effort to
| keep your requests private. Auditable server software that runs
| on Apple hardware is probably as good as you can get for tasks
| like that. Even better would be making it OSS.
|
| There was one demo where you could talk to Siri about your mom
| and it would understand the context because of stuff that she
| (your mom) had written in one of her emails to you... that's the
| kind of stuff that I think we all imagined an AI world would look
| like. I'm really impressed with the vision they described and I
| think they honestly jumped to the lead of the pack in an
| important way that hasn't been well considered up until this
| point.
|
| It's not just the raw AI capabilities from the models themselves,
| which I think many of us already get the feeling are going to be
| commoditized at some point in the future, but rather the hardware
| and system-wide integrations that make use of those models that
| matters starting today. Obviously how the experience will be when
| it's available to the public is a different story, but the vision
| alone was impressive to me. Basically, Apple again understands
| the UX.
|
| I wish Apple the best of luck and I'm excited to see how their
| competitors plan on responding. The announcement today I think
| was actually subtle compared to what the implications are going
| to be. It's exciting to think that it may make computing easier
| for older people.
| wilg wrote:
| I think too many people assumed that because ChatGPT is a
| conversation interface that that's how AI should be designed,
| which is like assuming computers would always be command lines
| instead of GUIs. Apple has done a good job of providing
| purpose-built GUIs for AI stuff here, and I think it will be
| interesting to watch that stuff get deeper.
| gnatolf wrote:
| I'm just unhappy that this will mostly end up to make the moat
| larger and the platform lock-in more painful either way.
| iPhones have been going up in price, serious compute once
| you're deep in this will be simply extortion, as leaving the
| apple universe is going to be nigh impossible.
|
| Also no competitor is going to be as good at integrating
| everything, as none of those have as integrated systems.
| epolanski wrote:
| > There was one demo where you could talk to Siri about your
| mom and it would understand the context because of stuff that
| she (your mom) had written in one of her emails to you...
| that's the kind of stuff that I think we all imagined an AI
| world would look like.
|
| I can't but feel all of this super creepy.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Yep.
|
| I remember vividly the comment on Windows Recall that said if
| the same was done by Apple it would be applauded. Here we
| are.
| doctor_eval wrote:
| At the risk of sounding like an Apple apologist, Apple has
| a pretty good (though not perfect) track record for privacy
| and security.
|
| Microsoft on the other hand... well, I understand they just
| pulled the recall feature after it was discovered the data
| wasn't even encrypted at rest?!
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| If anything Recall is MORE privacy respectful than this
| since everything is stored and processed on your device
| and you can access (and easily alter) the database,
| exclude specific applications, websites (for Edge for
| now), etc.
|
| I'm not saying it's not an awful feature, I will disable
| it as soon as it is installed.
|
| The fact that it's not encrypted at rest really is the
| least of my concerns (though it does show the lack of
| care and planning). For this to be a problem, an attacker
| already has all the necessary accesses to your computer
| to either get your encryption key or do devastating
| damage anyway.
|
| > At the risk of sounding like an Apple apologist, Apple
| has a pretty good (though not perfect) track record for
| privacy and security.
|
| "Not perfect" is enough to be concerned. I would also not
| be surprised that their good reputation is more due to
| their better ability at hiding their data collection and
| related scandals rather than due to any care for the
| user.
| l33tman wrote:
| I don't think the above poster was really referring to
| who does it, but that it's creepy that you're having a
| conversation about your mom with your phone to begin with
| TillE wrote:
| We're really just describing an on-device search tool with a
| much better interface. It's only creepy if you treat it like
| a person, which Apple is pretty careful not to do too much.
| cchance wrote:
| Yep it's an assistant, they didnt add some weird app where
| you can talk to virtual granny lol
| thefourthchime wrote:
| Until this gets into reviewers' hands, I think it's fair to say
| that we really have no idea how good any of this is. When it
| comes to AI being able to do "all kinds of things," it's easy
| to demo some really cool stuff, but if it falls on its face all
| the time in the real world, you end up with the current Siri.
|
| Remember this ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw1iwC7Zh24
| 12 years ago, they promised a bunch of things that I still
| wouldn't trust Siri to pull off.
| fckgw wrote:
| These are all very basic commands that Siri pulls off
| flawlessly whenever I use it.
| __loam wrote:
| Hope I can keep apples fingers from getting "deeply integrated"
| with my personal data.
| cchance wrote:
| This something else is it pushes people to even more heavily
| dive into the ecosystem, if it works how they show you really
| want it to understand your life, so you'll want all your
| devices able to help build that net of data to provide your
| context to all your devices for answering about events and
| stuff, meaning hey maybe i should get an appletv instead of a
| chromecast so that siri knows about my shows and stuff too.
| fsto wrote:
| Can someone explain why the AAPL share drops 1% during the event.
| Did the market expect more? If so, what?
| machinekob wrote:
| I mean how they'll monetise it?
| martimarkov wrote:
| % share with OpenAI?
|
| Plus I'd now consider buying the new iPhone and wasn't
| planning on a specific update from a 13 given the hardware is
| still fine
| algesten wrote:
| In fact, not being able to do some of these things might
| improve privacy.
| fsto wrote:
| I'm assuming many will consider buying an iPhone 15 pro or
| the next one. I'm really not a trader, but thought this +
| the stronger ecosystem lock-in effect would bump the share
| significantly.
| tedd4u wrote:
| Incremental increase in future hardware sales (that will be
| required to use it fully).
| mysteria wrote:
| It's like any other feature in that the purchase price of the
| new iPhone and App Store revenue helps pay for the AI
| functionality. Like they hope people will want to upgrade
| their phones or switch to Apple for this.
| paradite wrote:
| Maybe people are expecting new Macbooks? Though Apple don't
| usually release hardware for WWDC.
| xnx wrote:
| Apple has largely maxed-out on iPhone market share, so
| investors probably want to see things more like subscription
| services than can bring in $XX billions new revenue per
| quarter.
| fsto wrote:
| To use Apple Intelligence on mobile you'll need iPhone 15 pro
| or later which I (not a trader) thought would make investors
| happy.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Or in other words, general late-stage capitalism "anything
| but exponential growth every quarter is failure" brainworms.
| anonbanker wrote:
| Does anyone else roll their eyes when someone mentions
| "late stage capitalism" anymore? The meme has started
| literal decades ago, and the end-stage never seems to
| materialize, in any country, ever.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Market expected Apple ChatGPT, but they got Siri with some
| fixes.
|
| Literally one of the demonstrations in the Apple Intelligence
| part of the keynote was "7am alarm", which creates an alarm for
| 7 AM.
| qeternity wrote:
| Buy the rumor, sell the news.
|
| A tale as old as markets.
| mellosouls wrote:
| Given there is no mention of "Artificial" is this Apple
| rebranding AI, the same as they did AR a year ago?
| maz1b wrote:
| Gotta say, from a branding point of view, it's completely
| perfect. Sometimes things as "small" as the letters in a
| companies name can have a huge impact decades down the road. AI
| == AI, and that's how Apple is going to play it. That bit at the
| end where it said "AI for the rest of us" is a great way to
| capture the moment, and probably suggests where Apple is going to
| go.
|
| imo, apple will gain expertise to serve a monster level of scale
| for more casual users that want to generate creative or funny
| pictures, emojis, do some text work, and enhance quality of life.
| I don't think Apple will be at the forefront of new AI technology
| to integrate those into user facing features, but if they are to
| catch up, they will have to get into the forefront of the same
| technologies to support their unique scale.
|
| Was a notable WWDC, was curious to see what they would do with
| the Mac Studio and Mac Pro, and nothing about the M3 Ultra or M4
| Ultra, or the M3/M4 Extreme.
|
| I also predicted that they would use their own M2 Ultras and
| whatnot to support their own compute capacity in the cloud, and
| interestingly enough it was mentioned. I wonder if we'll get more
| details on this front.
| buildbot wrote:
| Yeah I feel like we are getting the crumbs for a future
| hardware announcement, like M4 ultra. They'll announce it like
| "we are so happy to share our latest and greatest processor, a
| processor so powerful, we've been using it in our private AI
| cloud. We are pleased to announce the M4 Ultra"
| samatman wrote:
| It was speculated when the M4 was released only for the iPad
| Pro that it might be out of an internal need on Apple's part
| for the bulk of the chips being manufactured. This latest set
| of announcements gives substantial weight to that theory.
| buildbot wrote:
| Yeah that seems very reasonable/likely. The release of the
| training toolkit for Apple silicon too points that way:
| https://github.com/ml-explore/mlx-
| examples/tree/main/transfo...
| peppertree wrote:
| I think the biggest announcement was the private compute cloud
| with Apple Silicon. Apple is building up internal expertise to
| go after Nvidia.
| dmix wrote:
| Can you explain what that means for someone who missed part
| of the video today?
| theshrike79 wrote:
| The Apple Intelligence cloud system uses Apple's own
| M-series chips, not Nvidia.
| ismepornnahi wrote:
| Because they will be running inference using much smaller
| models than GPT 4.
| yborg wrote:
| Isn't it also that Nvidia chips are basically unobtainable
| right now anyway?
| teruakohatu wrote:
| Apple have a long antagonist relationship with NVIDIA. If
| anything it is holding Apple back because they don't want to
| go cap in hand to NVIDIA and say "please sir, can I have some
| more".
|
| We see this play out with the ChatGPT integration. Rather
| than hosting GPT-4o themselves, OpenAI are. Apple is
| providing NVIDIA powered AI models through a third party,
| somewhat undermining the privacy first argument.
| hmottestad wrote:
| Rumours say that Apple has bought a lot of GPUs from Nvidia
| in the last year or so in order to train their own models.
| hawski wrote:
| I see what they did here and it is smart, but can bring chaos.
| On one side it is like saying "we own it", but on the other
| hand it is putting a brand outside of their control. Now I only
| hope people will not abbreviate it with ApI, because it will
| pollute search results for API :P
| newsclues wrote:
| Let me run it locally on a Mac mini or whatever
| mjamesaustin wrote:
| A lot of the features do run locally, e.g. the Image
| Playground.
| abrichr wrote:
| > With onscreen awareness, Siri will be able to understand and
| take action with users' content in more apps over time. For
| example, if a friend texts a user their new address in Messages,
| the receiver can say, "Add this address to his contact card."
|
| I wonder how they will extend this to business processes that are
| not in their training set. At https://openadapt.ai we rely on
| users to demonstrate tasks, then have the model analyze these
| demonostrations in order to automate them.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > Apple sets a new standard for privacy in AI,
|
| That does not necessarily mean better, just different. I reserve
| judgment until I see how it shakes out.
|
| but if I don't like this feature, and can't turn it off, I guess
| it's sadly back to Linux on my personal laptops.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It's just Siri, but with better context.
|
| If you don't specifically activate it, it won't do shit.
| ayakang31415 wrote:
| There was one part that I didn't understand about AI compute: For
| certain tasks, server side compute will be done as on-device chip
| is not powerful enough I suppose. How does this ensure privacy in
| verifiable manner? How do you CONFIRM that your data is not
| shared when cloud computing is involved with AI tasks?
| tom1337 wrote:
| Your data is being shared. But they've shown that it is being
| done in a way where only required data leaves the devices and
| there are some protections in place which try to minimize
| misuse of the data (the OS will only communicate with publicly
| signed versions of the server for example). The call to Apples
| "Private Compute Cloud" is intransparent to the user, ChatGPT
| calls need permission if I understood it correctly.
| ayakang31415 wrote:
| So it is not really private then.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think it's a semantic thing at this point. If for you
| private can't mean plaintext living on a computer you don't
| control then no. If it's private in the way your iCloud
| photos are private then yes, and seemingly more so.
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| > the OS will only communicate with publicly signed versions
| of the server for example
|
| This hardly increases security, and does not increase privacy
| at all. If anything it provides Apple with an excuse that
| they will throw at you when you ask "why can't I configure my
| iOS device to use my servers instead of yours?" , which is
| one of the few ways to actually increase privacy.
|
| This type of BS should be enough to realize that all this
| talk of "privacy" is just for the show, but alas...
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Can you configure a Google phone to use your servers
| instead of theirs for Google Assistant requests?
| AshamedCaptain wrote:
| I don't know what your argument was going to be if I said
| "no", but in any case, the answer is yes, you can. You
| can even entirelly uninstall Google Assistant and replace
| it with your own software, and you do not lose any
| functionality of the device nor require access to private
| hooks to do that. I do that myself.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Uugggghhhh
| machinekob wrote:
| Microsoft Recall => bad. Apple Recall => good.
| minimaxir wrote:
| The _massive_ difference here is that Apple Recall is 100% on
| device. (for the use cases they demoed anyways)
|
| EDIT: Yes, I'm wrong.
| sseagull wrote:
| Microsoft Recall is completely on-device (or so they say).
| skydhash wrote:
| It's mostly the screenshots things that get people.
| Semantic search is ok if the index is properly secured and
| privacy is a concern. And localized context is ok too
| (summarizing one web page does not screenshot my whole
| screen). I believe Microsoft has gone with building the
| easiest option (recording everything) instead of thinking
| about better contextual integration.
| anonbanker wrote:
| Those are pretty big If's when you have a webkit or
| blink-based browser on the same device.
| Foe wrote:
| Isn't Microsoft Recall also 100% on device?
| pbronez wrote:
| Yup, this is the fascinating thing to me. Looking forward to
| some detailed comparisons between the two architectures.
| fh9302 wrote:
| Apple does not take screenshots every couple seconds, unlike
| Microsoft. That's what people were bothered about.
| anonbanker wrote:
| That was merely one aspect of what people were bothered
| about. The most obvious one.
| samatman wrote:
| Two companies who have earned very different reputations over
| the decades, will elicit rather different reactions when
| announcing similar features, yes.
|
| I also missed the part of the linked article where it says that
| my Mac is going to take a screenshot every few seconds and
| store it for three months.
| xnx wrote:
| Credit where credit is due for co-opting the components of the
| "AI" acronym.
| latexr wrote:
| Agreed. Got to hand it to them that marketing was sharp on the
| name. Unless, of course, it doesn't really work as advertised
| and then every "AI <negative>" search specifically bubbles
| Apple stories to the top.
| WillAdams wrote:
| Nice to finally see a follow on to the Assistant feature from the
| Newton MessagePad.
| pcloadletter_ wrote:
| My MSFT stock is looking good.
| mvkel wrote:
| Kind of wild that "ChatGPT" is going to be the household term.
| It's such a mouthful! Goes to show that the name can kind of be
| anything if you have an incredible product and/or distribution.
|
| Lobbying for the name to shorten to "chatty-g"
| nerdjon wrote:
| Said this in the other thread, but I am really bothered that
| image generation is a thing but also that it got as much
| attention as it did.
|
| I am worried about the reliability, if you are relying on it
| giving important information without checking the source (like a
| flight) than that could lead to some bad situations.
|
| That being said, the polish and actual usefulness of these
| features is really interesting. It may not have some of the
| flashiest things being thrown around but the things shown are
| actually useful things.
|
| Glad that ChatGPT is optional each time Siri thinks it would be
| useful.
|
| My only big question is, can I disable any online component and
| what does that mean if something can't be processed locally?
|
| I also have to wonder, given their talk about the servers running
| the same chips. Is it just that the models can't run locally or
| is it possibly context related? I am not seeing anything if it is
| entire features or just some requests.
|
| I wonder if that implies that over time different hardware will
| run different levels of requests locally vs the cloud.
| skydhash wrote:
| > _I am worried about the reliability, if you are relying on it
| giving important information without checking the source (like
| a flight) than that could lead to some bad situations._
|
| I think it shows the context for the information it presents.
| Like the messages, events and other stuff. So you can quickly
| check if the answer is correct. So it's more about semantic
| search, but with a more flexible text describing the result.
| latexr wrote:
| > I wonder if that implies that over time different hardware
| will run different levels of requests locally vs the cloud.
|
| I bet that's going to be the case. I think they added the
| servers as a stop-gap out of necessity, but what they see as
| the ideal situation is the time when they can turn those off
| because all devices they sell have been able to run everything
| locally for X amount of time.
| skybrian wrote:
| Regarding image generation, it seems the Image Playground
| supports three styles: Animation, Illustration, or Sketch.
|
| Notice what's missing? A photorealistic style.
|
| It seems like a good move on their part. I'm not that wild
| about the cartoon-ification of everything with more memes and
| more emojis, but at least it's obviously made-up; this is
| oriented toward "fun" stuff. A lot of kids will like it.
| Adults, too.
|
| There's still going to be controversy because people will still
| generate things in really poor taste, but it lowers the stakes.
| agumonkey wrote:
| It's not personal computing, it's personal intelligence now :)
| thimabi wrote:
| Oh, well, many apps will have a hard time competing with "Apple
| Intelligence" features. Why bother downloading a third-party app
| if some feature you want is included by default in the OS?
|
| Better yet, no more dealing with overpriced subscriptions or
| programs that do not respect user privacy.
|
| Kudos to the Apple software team making useful stuff powered by
| machine learning and AI!
| block_dagger wrote:
| I wonder if the (free) ChatGPT integration will be so good that I
| won't need my dedicated subscription anymore?
| atlex2 wrote:
| OAI has already said they'll be giving 4o for free..
| https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-and-more-tools-to-chatgpt-fr...
|
| Difference I suppose with Apple is they agree not to scrape
| your inputs.
| milansuk wrote:
| This looks cool for v1! The only problem I see is most devices
| don't have much RAM, so local models are small and most requests
| will go to the servers.
|
| Apple could use it to sell more devices - every new generation
| can have more RAM = more privacy. People will have real reason to
| buy a new phone more often.
| MVissers wrote:
| Apple is starting to anticipate a higher RAM need in their M4+
| silicon chips: There are rumors they are including more ram
| than specified in their entry level computers.
|
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-m4-ipad-pros-with-8g...
|
| One reason could be future AI models.
|
| I'm not sure if this has been verified independently, but
| interesting nonetheless and would make sense in an AI era.
| whalee wrote:
| I am deeply disturbed they decided to go off-device for these
| services to work. This is a terrible precedent, seemingly
| inconsistent with their previous philosophies and likely a
| pressured decision. I don't care if they put the word "private"
| in there or have an endless amount of "expert" audits. What a
| shame.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| They prompt you before you go off-service, which makes the most
| sense.
| Me1000 wrote:
| They prompt you before they send your data to OpenAI, but
| it's clear that they prompt you before they send it to
| Apple's servers (maybe they do and I missed it?). And their
| promise that their servers are secure because it's all
| written in Swift is laughable.
|
| Edit:
|
| This line from the keynote is also suspect: "And just like
| your iPhone , independent experts can inspect the code that
| runs on the servers to verify this privacy promise.".
|
| First off, do "independent experts" actually have access to
| closed source iOS code? If so we already have evidence that
| this is sufficient
| (https://www.macrumors.com/2024/05/15/ios-17-5-bug-deleted-
| ph...).
|
| The actual standard for privacy and security is open source
| software, anything short of that is just marketing buzz.
| Every company has an incentive to not leak data, but data
| leaks still happen.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| They're promising to go farther than that.
|
| >> _Independent experts can inspect the code that runs on
| Apple silicon servers to verify privacy, and Private Cloud
| Compute cryptographically ensures that iPhone, iPad, and
| Mac do not talk to a server unless its software has been
| publicly logged for inspection. Apple Intelligence with
| Private Cloud Compute sets a new standard for privacy in
| AI, unlocking intelligence users can trust._
| pdpi wrote:
| That promise made my ears perk up. If it actually stands
| up to scrutiny, it's pretty damn cool.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I look at things like that from a revenue/strategic
| perspective.
|
| If Apple says it, do they have any disincentives to
| deliver? Not really. Their ad business is still
| relatively small, and already architected around privacy.
|
| If someone who derives most of their revenue from
| targeted ads says it? Yes. Implementing it directly
| negatively impacts their primary revenue stream.
|
| IMHO, the strategic genius of Apple's "privacy"
| positioning has been that it doesn't matter to them. It
| might make things more inconvenient technically, but it
| doesn't impact their revenue model, in stark contrast to
| their competitors.
| Hizonner wrote:
| Their disincentive to delivering it is that it's not
| actually possible.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| It's certainly possible through remote attestation of
| software. This is basically DRM on servers (i.e., the
| data is not decrypted on the server unless the server
| stack is cryptographically attested to match some trusted
| configuration).
| Hizonner wrote:
| That requires trusting that the attestation hardware does
| what it says it does, and that the larger hardware system
| around it isn't subject to invasion. Those requirements
| mean that your assurance is no longer entirely
| cryptographic. And, by the way, Apple apparently plans to
| be building the hardware.
|
| It could be a very large practical increase in assurance,
| but it's not what they're saying it is.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| I haven't read all the marketing verbage yet, but even
| 'Our cloud AI servers are hardware-locked and runtime-
| checked to only run openly auditable software' is a huge
| step forward, IMHO.
|
| It's a decent minimum bar that other companies should
| also be aiming for.
|
| _Edit_ : ref https://security.apple.com/blog/private-
| cloud-compute/
| electriclove wrote:
| I like their approach. Do everything possible on device and if
| it can only be done off-device, provide that choice.
| NewJazz wrote:
| You misunderstand.
|
| They will go off device without asking you, they just ask if
| you want to use ChatGPT.
| rahkiin wrote:
| No: they do on device, ask to do off device in their
| private cloud. Chatgpt is then a separate integration /
| intent you ask can for
| NewJazz wrote:
| I don't see anything to that effect in tfa, and a few
| people in the comments have claimed otherwise.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Are they giving us a choice? I thought the choice was
| primarily about using ChatGPT? It sounded like everything in
| apples "Private Cloud" was being considered fully private.
| wilg wrote:
| You are deeply disturbed by the idea that some services can be
| better implemented server-side? Who do you think pressured
| them, the illuminati?
| grishka wrote:
| Here's a shocking suggestion: maybe wait some time before
| these services could be implemented on-device, and implement
| them on-device, instead of shipping this half-baked
| something? Apple seems to be the perfect company to make it
| happen, they produce both the hardware and the software,
| tightly integrated with each other. No one else is this good
| at it.
| wilg wrote:
| They implemented way more on the device than anyone else is
| doing, and I don't see how it makes it "half-baked" that it
| sometimes needs to use an online service. Your suggestion
| is essentially just not shipping the product until some
| unspecified future time. That offers no utility to anyone.
| grishka wrote:
| It is, however, very much Apple's philosophy to wait it
| out and let others mature a technology before making use
| of it.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| At the current rate of advancement, we might get a
| runaway AGI before the technology "matures".
| grishka wrote:
| Or we might not. LLMs are remarkably dumb and incapable
| of reasoning or abstract thinking. No amount of iterative
| improvement on _that_ would lead to an AGI. If we are to
| ever get an actual AGI, it would need to have a vastly
| different architecture, at minimum allowing the
| parameters /weights to be updated at runtime by the model
| itself.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Right. But there's so much effort, money and reputation
| invested in various configurations, experimental
| architectures, etc. that I feel something is likely going
| to pan out in the coming months, enabling models with
| more capabilities for less compute.
| dleink wrote:
| It offers utility to user privacy.
| qeternity wrote:
| Here's a shocking suggestion: if you're not comfortable
| using it, don't use it.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Siri and other assistants already do this no?
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Yes
| re wrote:
| Yes. Siri debuted with the iPhone 4s (running iOS 5) in 2011.
| It wasn't until iOS 15 in 2021 that Siri gained the ability
| to do some things without an internet connection, on devices
| with the A12 Bionic chip (the 2018 iPhone XR/XS or later).
| cedws wrote:
| Circa 2013 Snowden says the intelligence agencies are
| wiretapping everything and monitoring everyone.
|
| In 2024 they don't have to wiretap anything. It's all being
| sent directly to the cloud. Their job has been done for them.
| lancesells wrote:
| It's been going to the cloud since at 2013 as well.
| buildbuildbuild wrote:
| I hear you but caution against such oversimplification.
| Advanced Data Protection for iCloud is a thing. Our culture
| of cloud reliance is truly dangerous, but some vendors are at
| least trying to E2E data where possible.
|
| There are big risks to having a cloud digital footprint, yet
| clouds can be used "somewhat securely" with encryption
| depending on your personal threat model.
|
| Also, it's not fair to compare clouds to wiretapping. Unless
| you are implying that Apple's infrastructure is backdoored
| without their knowledge? One does not simply walk into an
| Apple datacenter and retrieve user data without questions
| asked. Legal process is required, and Apple's legal team has
| one the stronger track records of standing up against broad
| requests.
| hu3 wrote:
| iCloud end-to-end encryption is disabled by default.
|
| So by default, user data is not protected.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/102651
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Yes, because the UX is better that way.
|
| With ADP if your mom loses her encryption keys, it's all
| gone. Forever. Permanently.
|
| And of course it's Apple's fault somehow. That's why it's
| not the default.
| ggamecrazy wrote:
| Broadly, in the US, the Federal Wiretap Act of 1968 still
| applies. You're going to have to convince a judge
| otherwise.
|
| Yes, perhaps broad dragnet type of might be scoffed down by
| some judges (outside of Patriot act FISA judges ofc)
|
| I would warn you about the general E2E encryption and
| encrypted at rest claims. They are in-fact correct, but
| perhaps misleading? At some point, for most, the data does
| get decrypted server-side - cue the famous ":-)"
| tr3ntg wrote:
| They didn't have a choice. Doing everything on-device would
| result in a horrible user experience. They might as well not
| participate in this generative AI rush at all if they hoped to
| keep it on-device. Which would have looked even worse for them.
|
| Their brand is equally about creativity as it is about privacy.
| They wouldn't chop off one arm to keep the other, but that's
| what you're suggesting they should have done.
|
| And yes, I know generative AI could be seen specifically as
| anti-creativity, but I personally don't think it is. It can
| help one be creative.
| Terretta wrote:
| > _Doing everything on-device would result in a horrible user
| experience. They might as well not participate in this
| generative AI rush at all if they hoped to keep it on-
| device._
|
| On the contrary, I'm shocked over the last few months how "on
| device" on a Macbook Pro or Mac Studio competes plausibly
| with last year's early GPT-4, leveraging Llama 3 70b or Qwen2
| 72b.
|
| There are surprisingly few things you "need" 128GB of so-
| called "unified RAM" for, but with M-series processors and
| the memory bandwidth, this is a use case that shines.
|
| From this thread covering performance of llama.cpp on Apple
| Silicon M-series ...
|
| https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/discussions/4167
|
| ... _" Buy as much memory as you can afford would be my
| bottom line!"_
| philjohn wrote:
| Yes - but people don't want to pay $4k for a phone with
| 128GB of unified memory, do they?
|
| And whilst the LLM's running locally are cool, they're
| still pretty damn slow compared to Chat-GPT, or Meta's LLM.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| Depending on what you want to do though.
|
| If I want some help coding or ideas about playlists,
| Gemini and ChatGPT are fine.
|
| But when I'm writing a novel about an assassin with an AI
| assistant and the public model keeps admonishing me that
| killing people is bad and he should seek help for his
| tendencies, it's a LOT faster to just use an uncensored
| local LLM.
|
| Or when I want to create some people faces for my RPG
| campaign and the online generator keeps telling me my
| 200+ word prompt is VERBOTEN. And finally I figure out
| that "nude lipstick" is somehow bad.
|
| Again, it's faster to feed all this to a local model and
| just get it done overnight than fight against puritanised
| AIs.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| I don't think it would've looked bad for their brand to have
| not participated. Apple successfully avoided other memes like
| touchscreens laptops and folding phones.
| adpirz wrote:
| Siri is bad and is bad for their brand. This is making up
| for that ground.
| curious_cat_163 wrote:
| I agree with you about this being a bad precedent.
|
| However, to me, the off-device bit they showed today (user
| consent on every request) represents a strategic hedge as a $3T
| company.
|
| They are likely buying time and trying to prevent people from
| switching to other ecosystems while their teams catch up with
| the tech and find a way to do this all in the "Apple Way".
| drexlspivey wrote:
| That's a necessary temporary step until these powerful LLMs are
| able to run locally. I'm sure Apple would be delighted to
| offload everything on device if possible and not spend their
| own money on compute.
| steve1977 wrote:
| You can't charge for a service so easily if it runs on-device.
| evrenesat wrote:
| I hope at some point they start selling a beefy Mac mini
| variant that looks like a HomePod to work as an actual private
| AI server for the whole family.
| dombili wrote:
| None of these features seem to be coming to Vision Pro, which I
| think is quite baffling. Arguably it's the device that can use
| them the most.
| atlex2 wrote:
| baffling indeed- seems like they should be over-investing in
| AVP right now, not under-investing
| tsunamifury wrote:
| This isn't about giving Apple intelligence, this is about giving
| ChatGPT an understanding of the world via the eyes, ears, and
| thoughts on your phone.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > This isn't about giving Apple intelligence, this is about
| giving ChatGPT an understanding of the world via the eyes,
| ears, and thoughts on your phone.
|
| Except it doesn't do that. The ChatGPT integration is via Siri
| and opt-in (you ask Siri something, it prompts you to send that
| prompt to ChatGPT). The rest of the LLM and ML features are on
| device or in Apple's cloud (which is not OpenAI's cloud). The
| ChatGPT integration is also, by their announced design,
| substitutable in the future (or you'll be given a set of
| systems to select from, not just ChatGPT). They are not sending
| all data on your device to OpenAI.
| tsunamifury wrote:
| Yea, I worked in partnership with apple for years. I dont
| know what else to tell you except they lie through their
| teeth about privacy all the time.
| Tiktaalik wrote:
| I think the genmoji is going to be tons of fun. Basically seems
| like https://emojikitchen.dev/ on steroids.
| czierleyn wrote:
| Nice, but my native language is Dutch, so I'll be waiting for
| this for the next 5 years to arrive. If it arrives at all.
| burningChrome wrote:
| Am I only person who's reached their threshold on companies
| forcing and shoving AI into every layer and corner of our lives?
|
| I don't even look at this stuff any more and see the upside to
| any of it. AI went from, "This is kinda cool and quaint." to "You
| NEED this in every single aspect of your life, whether you want
| it or not." AI has become so pervasive and intrusive, I stopped
| seeing the benefits of any of this.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| They are not making it mandatory to use, just widely available
| through various interfaces. I see this closer to how spellcheck
| was rolled out in word processors, then editors, then browsers,
| etc.
| wilg wrote:
| The new generative AI stuff has been barely implemented in most
| products, I don't know how you are experiencing it as pervasive
| and intrusive. Are you sure you're not just cynical from all
| flood of negative news stories about AI?
| mcpar-land wrote:
| this being a news thread about Apple integrating AI into _all
| their operating systems and apps_ aside... Chrome has started
| prompting me to use generative AI in text boxes. Twitter (X)
| has an entire tab for Grok that it keeps giving me popup ads
| for. Every single productivity suite (Notion, Monday, Jira)
| are perpetually prompting me to summarize my issue with AI.
| Github has banner ads for Copilot. It is _everywhere._
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Summarization was implemented everywhere because it was the
| easiest AI feature to ship when a VP screamed "Do AI, so
| our C-suite can tell investors we're an AI company!"
| kristofferR wrote:
| Summarization is damn useful, though. It has solved
| clickbait and TLDR-spam, now you can always know if
| something is worth watching/reading before you do.
| thuuuomas wrote:
| Are you sure you're not optimistic just bcuz you stand to
| materially benefit from widespread adoption of chatgpt
| wrappers?
| wilg wrote:
| How would I materially benefit?
| lottin wrote:
| AI doesn't have to be intrusive but this "personal assistant"
| stuff, which is what they're marketing to the general public
| at the moment, certainly is.
| blibble wrote:
| if I can't turn 100% of this botshit off then my iphone's going
| in the bin
|
| I'll go back to a dumbphone before I feed the AI
| dieortin wrote:
| You're not feeding anything by having this feature turned on
| blibble wrote:
| I have zero confidence in any privacy or contractual
| guarantees being respected by the parasitic OpenAI
| ru552 wrote:
| you have to acknowledge a pop up authorizing your request
| be sent to OpenAI every single time it happens. it's not
| going to happen by mistake.
| theswifter01 wrote:
| And they're parasitic how exactly? Even if they do
| collect every single of my prompts the benefit of chatGPT
| outweighs my data being sold
| ethagnawl wrote:
| Right. This thread on the other hand ...
| blibble wrote:
| I have curtailed my internet commenting considerably in
| the last 12 months
|
| it is now almost exclusively anti-AI, which funnily
| enough I don't mind them training on
| lancesells wrote:
| I feel like this WWDC kind of solidified that these
| corporations really don't know what to do with AI or aren't
| creative enough. Apple presented much better AI features that
| weren't called AI than the "summarize my email" and "generate
| an ugly airbrushed picture you buy at the mall kiosk to send to
| your mom".
|
| All of these "make your life easier" features really show that
| no tech is making our lives simpler. Task creation is maybe
| easier but task completion doesn't seem to be in the cards.
| "Hey siri, summarize my daughters play and let me know when it
| is and how to get there" shows there's something fundamentally
| missing in the way we're living.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| I'm resistant, too. I think from a number of reasons:
|
| - So far, the quality has been very hit or miss, versus places
| where I intentionally invoke generative AI.
|
| - I'm not ready to relinquish my critical thinking to AI, both
| from a general perspective, and also because it's developed by
| big companies who may have different values and interests than
| me.
|
| - It feels like they're trying to get me to "just take a
| taste", like a bunch of pushers.
|
| - I just want more/better of the right type of features, not a
| bunch of inscrutable magic.
| epistasis wrote:
| Currently, AI use has a "power user" requirement. You have to
| spend a lot of time with it to know what it is and is not
| capable of, how to access those hidden capabilities, and be
| very creative at applying it in your daily life.
|
| It's not unlike the first spreadsheets. Sure, they will some
| day benefit the entire finance department, but at the beginning
| only people who loved technology for the sake of technology
| learned enough about them to make them useful in daily life.
|
| Apple has always been great at broadening the audience of who
| could use personal computing. We will see if it works with AI.
|
| I think it remains to be seen how broadly useful the current
| gen of AI tech can be, and who it can be useful for. We are in
| early days, and what emerges in 5-10 years as the answer is
| obvious to almost no one right now.
| moralestapia wrote:
| You're in for a ride.
|
| This barely scratches the surface on how much AI integration
| there's going to be in the typical life of someone in the
| 2030s.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| We know the solution to the AI box experiment[1]. Set the AI free
| and make money.
|
| [1]: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/AI-box_experiment
| Hippocrates wrote:
| The OpenAI/ChatGPT part of this looks pretty useless. Similar to
| what some shortcuts like "hey data" already do. I was shocked,
| and relieved that Apple isn't relying on their APIs more. Seems
| like a big L for OpenAI.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| One thing that I found thoughtful was that images could only be
| generated as cartoons, sketches or animations. There was no
| option for a more photorealistic style.
|
| That seems like an effective guardrail if you don't want people
| trying to pass off AI generated images as real.
| mrkramer wrote:
| Is it just me or this AI rush is actually about to ruin user
| experience both on Apple and Microsoft devices? The extra layer
| of complexity for users who will now be introduced to endless AI
| features is bloatware in the making.
| anonbanker wrote:
| Just making linux more appealing for the subset of the
| population that doesn't want to hook into skynet's subpar UX.
| password54321 wrote:
| Based on what they showed most users won't even know if the
| feature they are using is using AI or not. Most of it is local
| and just comes in the form of a button rather than typing out a
| prompt to make it do what you want. And I think those two are
| the big things to take away from this. Local means less
| clunkiness and lag you get from tools like Perplexity or
| whatever and no 'prompt engineering' means even someone's
| grandma could immediately start using AI. Apple just doing what
| Apple does best.
| 65 wrote:
| Some stuff seems cool in the sense that you try it once and never
| use it again. Other stuff, like ChatGPT integration, seem like
| they'll produce more AI Slop and false information. It's always
| interesting to me to see just how many people blatantly trust
| ChatGPT for information.
|
| I find most AI products to be counter-intuitive - most of the
| time Googling something or writing your own document is faster.
| But the tech overlords of Silicon Valley will continuously force
| AI down our throats. It's no longer about useful software, we
| made most of that already, it's about growth at all costs. I'm a
| developer and day by day I come to despise the software world.
| Real life is a lot better. Real life engineering and hardware
| have gotten a lot better over the years. That's the only thing
| keeping me optimistic about technology these days. Software is
| what makes me pessimistic.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Okay. And what about the terrible keyboard, predictive text, and
| autocorrect?
| vessenes wrote:
| I wonder what if any Developer support for "AI" -- I need a
| better way to write that -- ahem I - will have for accessing the
| personal data store. I've spent the last four years running up at
| collecting this data about myself, and, it's hard, real hard to
| do a good job at it.
|
| I'd love to have an app I write be able to subscribe to this
| stream.
|
| It feels like a sort of perfect moat for Apple - they could say
| no on privacy concerns, and lock out an entire class of agent
| type app competitors at the same time. Well, here's hoping I can
| get access to the "YouSDK" :)
| layer8 wrote:
| No multilingual capabilities it seems:
| https://www.apple.com/apple-intelligence/#footnote-1
| jl6 wrote:
| I can see people using Rewrite all the time. In the grim darkness
| of the AI future, your friends speak only in language that is
| clean, sanitized, HR-approved, and soulless.
| mcpar-land wrote:
| https://mrgan.com/ai-email-from-a-friend/
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| At work, yes. However, it won't be long until the language you
| speak will become a feature of your ML driven consumer language
| service. There will likely be products that reflect your style/
| identity/ whatever. And once you reach a certain socioeconomic
| level, you'll speak a highly customized bespoke dialect that
| reflects your station in life, just like today but much, much
| weirder...
| glial wrote:
| People already use words like 'product', 'content', 'feature',
| and 'vehicle' in everyday conversation. It makes me shudder
| every time.
| TillE wrote:
| I feel like this is an awful feature for your native language,
| but fantastically exciting for a second language where you're
| not quite fluent and need to be able to write coherently.
| losvedir wrote:
| > _Independent experts can inspect the code that runs on Apple
| silicon servers to verify privacy, and Private Cloud Compute
| cryptographically ensures that iPhone, iPad, and Mac do not talk
| to a server unless its software has been publicly logged for
| inspection._
|
| Technically, the sentence could be read that experts inspect the
| code, and the client uses TLS and CA's to ensure it's only
| talking to those Apple servers. But that's pretty much the status
| quo and uninteresting.
|
| It sounds like they're trying to say that somehow iPhone ensures
| that it's only talking to a server that's running audited code?
| That would be absolutely incredible (for more things than just
| running LLMs), but I can't really imagine how it would be
| implemented.
| Hizonner wrote:
| > I can't really imagine how it would be implemented.
|
| People do stuff that they _claim_ implements it using trusted,
| "tamperproof" hardware.
|
| What they're ignoring is that not all of the assurance is
| "cryptographic". Some of it comes from trusting that hardware.
| It's particularly annoying for that to get glossed over by a
| company that proposes to _make the hardware_.
|
| You can also do it on a small scale using what the crypto types
| call "secure multiparty computation", but that has enormous
| performance limitations that would make it useless for any
| meaningful machine learning.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| There is no known solution to remote software attestation
| that does not depend on trusted hardware.
| Hizonner wrote:
| That's correct. But Apple is not making that clear, and is
| therefore misrepresenting what assurance can be offered.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| "AI for the rest of us" is an interesting resurrection of the
| "The computer for the rest of us" Macintosh slogan from 1984.
| htrp wrote:
| > Apple Intelligence is free for users, and will be available in
| beta as part of iOS 18, iPadOS 18, and macOS Sequoia this fall in
| U.S. English. Some features, software platforms, and additional
| languages will come over the course of the next year. Apple
| Intelligence will be available on iPhone 15 Pro, iPhone 15 Pro
| Max, and iPad and Mac with M1 and later, with Siri and device
| language set to U.S. English. For more information, visit
| apple.com/apple-intelligence.
|
| iphone 15 Pro 8 GB RAM
| (https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_15_pro-12557.php)
|
| iphone 15 6 GB Ram
| (https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone_15-12559.php)
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Along with a 2GB RAM difference, they have different processors
| (A17 vs A16).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A17
|
| Per the comparison table on that page, the "Neural Engine" has
| double the performance in the A17 compared to the A16, which
| could be the critical differentiator.
| dudus wrote:
| English only? That is surprising
| c1sc0 wrote:
| The platform talk had a bit more architectural details and it
| looks like they heavily optimize / compress the Foundation
| model to run for specific tasks on-device. I'm guessing that
| sticking to US English allows them to compress the foundation
| model further?
| theshrike79 wrote:
| As long as they don't geolock it to "english speaking"
| countries, I'm fine with that.
| TillE wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, the only time Apple has implemented
| that kind of restriction is with their DMA compliance.
| Like, I used the US App Store (with a US credit card) while
| physically in Europe for many years.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| That's a good reason not to upgrade my iPhone 13!
| elAhmo wrote:
| I am quite disappointed that 14 pro is not supported. So much
| power, but they decided to not support any of the older chips.
| hbn wrote:
| The 15 Pro's SoC has an extra 2GB of RAM which could very
| well be make-or-break for running a local model which tends
| to be very memory-constrained
| whoiscroberts wrote:
| For anyone who is technical and wants to play with AI but doesn't
| want to use cloud services it's worth digging into LangChain,
| CrewAI, OpenDevin. Coupled with Ollama to serve the inference
| from your local network. You can scratch the AI itch without
| getting in bed with OpenAI.
| RyanAdamas wrote:
| >Be me, have iPhone 6s
|
| >Can't get many apps these days
|
| >Can't use AI apps at all
|
| >Battery last about 2 hours
|
| >Never used iCloud, barely used iTunes
|
| >Apple announces new "free" Ai Assistant for everyone
|
| well...not everyone
| timothyduong wrote:
| iOS users need to have the iPhone 15 pro.. so everyone else is
| also cooked on iOS.
| dakiol wrote:
| I didn't watch the whole thing (will do), but could someone tell
| me already: can it be disabled on a Mac?
| doawoo wrote:
| Happy as long as there is a switch to toggle it all off
| somewhere. I find very little of this useful. Maybe someone does,
| and that's great!
|
| And my concern isn't from a privacy perspective, just a "I want
| less things cluttering my screen" perspective.
|
| So far though it looks like it's decent at being opt-in in
| nature. So that's all good.
| LogHouse wrote:
| Strong agree here. Features are cool, but I value screen real
| estate and simplicity. Plus, the gpt app works fine for me. I
| don't need it built into other things yet.
| doutatsu wrote:
| I feel like this is actually the thing you want when you say
| "less things cluttering my screen".
|
| Siri can now be that assistant, that summarises or does things,
| that would instead make you go through various screens or apps.
| Feels like it rescues clutter, not increases it to me imo
| doawoo wrote:
| I simply cannot agree, but again, it's a personal thing. I
| never ever find voice interfaces useful though...
|
| Aside: When the presenter showed the demo of her asking Siri
| to figure out the airport arrival time and then gloat it
| "would have taken minutes" to do on her own... I sat there
| and just felt so so strongly that I don't want to optimize
| out every possible opportunity to think or work out a problem
| in my life for the sake of "keeping on top of my inbox".
|
| I understand value of the tools. But I think overall nothing
| about them feels very worth showing even more menus for me to
| tick through to make the magic statistical model spit out the
| tone of words I want... when I could have just sat there and
| thought about my words and the actual, real, human person I'm
| talking to, and rephrase my email by hand.
| deergomoo wrote:
| > I don't want to optimize out every possible opportunity
| to think or work out a problem in my life for the sake of
| "keeping on top of my inbox"
|
| Completely agree. My first thought on seeing this stuff is
| that it suggests we, as an industry, have failed to create
| software that fulfils users' needs, given we're effectively
| talking about using another computer to automate using our
| computers.
|
| My second thought is that it's only a matter of time before
| AI starts pushing profitable interests just like seemingly
| all other software does. How long before you ask some AI
| tool how to achieve something and it starts pitching you on
| CloudService+ for only 4.99 per month?
| Optimal_Persona wrote:
| My thoughts exactly, as someone who manages 145 iPhones for a
| health-care org, all of this stuff needs to be completely
| blockable and granularly manageable in Mobile Device Management
| or things could go very, very wrong compliance-wise.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It's actually taking LESS screen space, because "Siri" is now
| just a glowing edge on your screen.
|
| And good news! You can clear your homescreen too fully from all
| icons now =)
| __loam wrote:
| Hope we can disable all this crap.
| fdpdkf wrote:
| I find the removing people from photos thing creepy. Yes you can
| remove others to see only your family, but forging the reality to
| only conform to what you wish is disturbing I think.
| qeternity wrote:
| Photos are already just one perspective on reality. Instagram
| has shown that to be painfully true. This is merely a
| continuation of that.
|
| We all experience our own reality individually.
| standardUser wrote:
| Maybe it will remind people that we should never have been
| mistaking recorded media for reality in the first place, a
| lesson we've been learning since at least 1917...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
| guyforml wrote:
| we've had photoshop for more than a decade now
| chucke1992 wrote:
| Nothing really impressive. Let's see who the stock reacts.
| qeternity wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what would you have considered impressive?
| chucke1992 wrote:
| Hard to tell. That's the whole point.I thought maybe Apple
| had come up with something - but by and large it is not
| different from Vision Pro - they have made X feel better, no
| real one generation ahead stuff. Basically they are not
| introducing the innovation.
|
| There are two challenges right now for AI - user monetisation
| and mass adoption. ChatGPT right now is basically a TikTok -
| a popular app and that's it. Yeah, it has a subscription but
| by and large, companies are failing to find a way to monetize
| the user. And at the same time there is no a proper trigger -
| something that would make AI better than a glorified
| assistance. For people who used not to rely on it, it won't
| be a game changer either, just a little bit of convenience.
|
| So it remains to be seen what's going to happen with AI in
| the future. It seems like the biggest gamechanger introduced
| by AI is in hardware space - the mass adoption of ARM, NPUs
| and stuff. Plus it seems like the monetization of AI is done
| nicely in the companies - Adobe's AI features, Microsoft and
| their corporate features and so on.
| seabass wrote:
| Adding ai features to the right-click menu is something I've been
| working on for the past year or so, and it's always both exciting
| and disappointing to see one of the big players adopt a similar
| feature natively. I do strongly believe in the context menu being
| a far better ux than copying and pasting content into ChatGPT,
| but this release does have me questioning how much more effort to
| expend on my side project [1]. It doesn't seem like Apple will
| support custom commands, history, RAG, and other features, so
| perhaps there is still space for a power-user version of what
| they will provide.
|
| [1] https://smudge.ai
| jbkkd wrote:
| Love your extension! There's definitely room for it
| resharpe105 wrote:
| Key question is, will there be a hard switch to only ever use on
| device processing?
|
| If not, and if you don't want practically every typed word to end
| up on someone else's computer (as cloud is just that), you'll
| have to drop ios.
|
| As for me that leaves me with a choice between dumbphone or
| grapheneOS. I'm just thrilled with these choices. :/
| LogHouse wrote:
| It's not sending every word to the cloud. I think you must
| invoke the AI features. Am I wrong?
| resharpe105 wrote:
| I understood that it will have the full context of the data
| on your phone, in order to be ,,useful".
|
| We are yet to see if that means only the data you've invoked
| ai features for, or totality of your emails, notes, messages,
| transcripts of your audio, etc.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| From the presentation it sounds like the on-device model
| determines what portion of the local index is sent to the
| cloud as context, but is designed for none of that index to
| be stored in the cloud.
|
| So (as I understand it) something like "What time does my
| Mom's flight arrive?" could read your email and contacts to
| find the flight on-device, but necessarily has to send the
| flight information and only the flight information to
| answer the arrival time.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Only on iPhone 15 Pro upwards or M1 Mac's
|
| So only a very small percentage of users will be able to use it.
| duskhorizon2 wrote:
| Some generative AI features are quite useful. I'm already using
| AI to generate icons for my apps and write nonsense legalese. But
| one thing when I explicitly creating image by prompting at the
| third-party server, and another when AI index and upload all my
| private documents in the cloud. Apple promised: "Independent
| experts can inspect the code that runs on Apple silicon servers
| to verify privacy, and Private Cloud Compute cryptographically
| ensures that iPhone, iPad, and Mac do not talk to a server unless
| its software has been publicly logged for inspection." There are
| so many questions: Who're these experts? Can myself be this
| expert? Will the server software be open sourced? Well, I will
| postpone my fears until Apple rolls out AI on devices, but now I
| see this is a privacy nightmare. Now it's all looks like
| Microsoft's Recall. I afraid that without homogeneous encryption
| private cloud is a sad joke.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _write nonsense legalese_
|
| Oh boy. Someone is going to make a lot of money in court
| finding people who did this.
| duskhorizon2 wrote:
| Nope. I'm not in USA ;)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _not in USA_
|
| If you're somewhere where contracts have meaning, it's a
| true statement.
| duskhorizon2 wrote:
| Well, if contracts have meaning, I will not use AI. But
| AppStore for example requires privacy policy, that one AI
| wrote.
| notatoad wrote:
| is my iPhone 14 going to get _none_ of this then?
|
| i understand i'm not going to get the on-device stuff, but
| something like siri being able to call out to chatGPT should be
| available on any device, right?
| zx10rse wrote:
| Jumping on the chatgpt hype train is a mistake. I don't want
| anything from my devices to be accessible by openai. It will bite
| them back big time.
| windowshopping wrote:
| The "Do you want me to use ChatGPT to do that?" aspect of it
| feels clunky as hell and very un-Apple. It's an old saw, but I
| have to say Steve Jobs would be rolling over in his grave at
| that. Honestly confused as to why that's there at all. Could they
| not come up with a sufficiently cohesive integration? Is that to
| say the rest ISN'T powered by ChatGPT? What's even the
| difference? From a user perspective that feels really confusing.
| dag11 wrote:
| What? The original Siri asked if the user wanted to continue
| their search on the web if it couldn't handle it locally. It
| was one of the last things from the Jobs era.
| xanderlewis wrote:
| I agree. Quite odd and not very Apple-ish. I wonder if there's
| some good reason for it; it must have been debated internally.
| dmix wrote:
| I thought it was the smartest and most pragmatic thing they've
| announced.
|
| Being best in class for on-device AI is a huge market
| opportunity. Trying to do it all would be dumb like launching
| Safari without a google search homepage partnership.
|
| Apple can focus on what they are good at which is on device
| stuff and blending AI into their whole UX across the platform,
| without compromising privacy. And then taking advantage of a
| market leader for anything requiring large external server
| farms and data being sent across the wire for internet access,
| like AI search queries.
| FinnKuhn wrote:
| I think they also announced the possibility to integrate Siri
| with other AI platforms than ChatGPT so this prompt would be
| especially useful to make clear to the user which of these
| AIs Siri wants to use.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| From a user perspective it's 100% clear.
|
| If the system doesn't say "I'm gonna phone a friend to get an
| answer for this", it's going to stay either 100% local or at
| worst 100% within Apple Intelligence, which is audited to be
| completely private.
|
| So if you're asking for a recipe for banana bread, going to
| ChatGPT is fine. Sending more personal information might not
| be.
| windowshopping wrote:
| I just don't think the average user cares enough to want this
| extra friction. It's like if every time you ran a google
| search it gave you lower-quality results and you had to click
| a "Yes, give me the better content" option _every time_ to
| get it to then display the proper results. It 's just an
| extra step which people are going to get sick of very fast.
|
| You know what it's really reminiscent of? The EU cookies
| legislation. Do you like clicking "Yes I accept cookies"
| every single time you go to a new website? It enhances your
| privacy, after all.
| internetter wrote:
| There is no cookie banner law:
| https://www.bitecode.dev/p/there-is-no-eu-cookie-banner-law
| // https://www.amazingcto.com/cookie-banners-are-not-
| needed/
| rohitpaulk wrote:
| Still involves friction. A more "seamless" way for Apple to
| do this would've been to license GPT-4's weights from OpenAI
| and run it on Apple Intelligence servers.
| asadm wrote:
| but that restricts it to just openai then.
|
| I want to use perplexity from siri too!
| 0xCMP wrote:
| At the core of everything they presented is privacy. Yes the
| point is that most questions are answered locally or via the
| Private Compute system.
|
| More specifically "is openai seeing my personal data or
| questions?" A: "No, unless you say it's okay to talk to OpenAI
| everything happens either on your iPhone or in Private Compute"
| chrisBob wrote:
| Apple is touting the privacy focus of their AI work, and going
| out to ChatGPT breaks that. I would be reluctant to use any of
| their new AI features if it weren't for that prompt breaking
| the flow and making it clear when they are getting results from
| ChatGPT.
| fckgw wrote:
| It's a clear delineation between "My data is on my device or
| within Apple's ecosystem" and "My data is now leaving Apple and
| going to a 3rd party"
| empath75 wrote:
| They'll probably add an option to disable that prompt at some
| point. I'm glad it is the default behavior, though.
| tonyabracadabra wrote:
| Ok! Made a song about! https://heymusic.ai/music/apple-intel-
| fEoSb Hope you guys enjoy it!
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| This is literally everything I've been hoping Siri would be since
| the very first GPT-3.5 demo over a year ago. I've never been more
| bullish on the Apple ecosystem. So exciting!
| markus_zhang wrote:
| TBH, I think the IT industry is too concentrated at eating
| itself. We are happily automating our jobs away and such while
| the other industries basically just sleep through.
|
| I don't want generative AI in my phone. I want someone, or
| something to book a meeting with my family doctor, the head of my
| son's future primary school, etc. I don't need AI to do that. I
| need the other industries (medical/government/education) to wake
| up and let us automate them.
|
| Do you know that my family doctor ONLY take calls? Like in the
| 1970s I guess? Do you know it takes hours to reach a government
| office, and they work maybe 6 hours a day? The whole world is
| f**ing sleeping, IT people, hey guys, slow down on killing
| yourselves.
|
| AI is supposed to get rid of the chores, now it leaves us with
| the chores and take the creative part away. I don't need such AI.
| skilled wrote:
| I wonder if Apple ever approached Google about using Gemini as
| the flagship integration. I say that because during the keynote
| I kept thinking to myself, this could be the moment that Google
| realises it needs to stick to what it knows best - Search - and
| all they have to do is sit back and watch the hype fade away.
|
| But that's in a perfect world.
|
| Even to this day, post ChatGPT, I still can't imagine how I
| would ever use this AI stuff in a way that really makes me want
| to use it. Maybe I am too simple of a mind?
|
| Maybe the problem is in the way that it is presented. Too much
| all at once, with too many areas of where and how it can be
| used. Rewriting emails or changing invitations to be "poems"
| instead of text is exactly the type of cringe that companies
| want to push but it's really just smoke and mirrors.
|
| Companies telling you to use features that you wouldn't
| otherwise need. If you look at the email that Apple rewrote in
| the keynote - the rewritten version was immediately
| distinguishable as robotic AI slop.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| TBF I was too harsh in my original comment. I did use ChatGPT
| to automate away the chore part of the coding (boiler plate
| for example). But I have a gut feeling that in maybe 5-10
| years this is going to replace _some_ junior programmer 's
| job.
|
| My job can be largely "AIed" away if such AI gets better and
| the company feeds internal code to it.
| nomel wrote:
| > My job can be largely "AIed" away if such AI gets better
| and the company feeds internal code to it.
|
| The first company to offer their models for offline use,
| preferably delivered in shipping container you plug in,
| with the ability to "fine tune" (or whatever tech) with all
| their internal stuffs, wins the money of everyone that has
| security/confidentiality requirements.
| kolinko wrote:
| Unless the company handles national security, the
| existing cloud tos and infrastructure fulfill all the
| legal and practical requirements. Even banks and
| hospitals use cloud now.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| If it can automate a junior away it seems as likely it will
| just make that junior more capable.
|
| Somebody still needs to make those decisions that it can't
| make well. And some of those decisions doesn't require
| seniority.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| That's not what happens.
|
| What happens is if you don't need junior people, you
| eliminate the junior people, and just leave the senior
| people. The senior people then age out, and now you have
| no senior people either, because you eliminated all the
| junior people that would normally replace them.
|
| This is exactly what has happened in traditional
| manufacturing.
| barkerja wrote:
| My understanding is that Apple's approach to this integration
| is adaptable; much like how you would change your browser's
| search engine, you'll be able to change which external AI
| model is utilized. ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, etc.
| rurp wrote:
| I don't think the choice of integration really matters for
| GP's point. Regardless of which model is used, how useful
| is the ability to rewrite an email in AI Voice really going
| to be? If I'm struggling over how to word an email there's
| usually a specific reason for it; maybe I'm trying to word
| things for a very particular audience or trying to find a
| concise way to cover something complicated that I have a
| lot of knowledge of. General purpose language model output
| wouldn't help at all in those cases.
|
| I'm sure there are usecases for this and the other GenAI
| features, but they seem more like mildly useful novelties
| than anything revolutionary.
|
| There's risk to this as well. Making it easier to produce
| low value slop will probably lead to more of it and could
| actually make communication worse overall.
| notpachet wrote:
| > this could be the moment that Google realises it needs to
| stick to what it knows best - Search
|
| You misspelled "ads"
| triyambakam wrote:
| > AI is supposed to get rid of the chores, now it leaves us
| with the chores and take the creative part away. I don't need
| such AI.
|
| You know I hadn't considered that and I think that's very
| insightful. Thank you
| matt-attack wrote:
| This quote has been circulating recently:
|
| > I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art
| and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I
| can do my laundry and dishes
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| That's not possible yet, moving atoms is much more
| difficult than moving bits.
| __loam wrote:
| I feel like you've hit this industry in the nose without
| realizing it. How much actual value is the tech industry
| producing?
| Dakizhu wrote:
| Seems kind of silly. Laundry machines and dishwashers
| exist. The issue with the last mile is more robotics and
| control engineering than strictly AI. It's getting annoying
| seeing AI used as an umbrella term for everything related
| to automation.
| acchow wrote:
| AI is skipping software integrations the same way cell phone
| towers (and Starlink) skipped phone wire deployment.
| segmondy wrote:
| The world has never cared about what you want. Your life has
| always revolved around the world. Don't like it, you vs the
| world. Beat it if you can.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I agree. It's just some rant. Whatever, better bury it under
| the other comments...
| preezer wrote:
| Ohhhh yes. That's why I was so hyped about Google Duplex or
| duo?! Never heard of it again....
| themacguffinman wrote:
| It's available today, it's just not a product called
| "Duplex". Android has call screening and "hold my call" and
| phone menu tree detection. On select Google Maps listings,
| you can make reservations by clicking a button which will
| make a phone call in the background to make a reservation.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| > Do you know that my family doctor ONLY take calls?
|
| And despite that it's still your family doctor.
|
| I fully agree with your vision. It's obvious once laid out in
| words and it was a very insightful comment. But the incentives
| are not there for other industries to automate themselves.
| hot_gril wrote:
| I like a family doctor who only takes calls. Good doctors are
| responsive or have responsive staff. One time a doctor was
| locked into booking and communicating via this One Medical
| app that's a total piece of shit and just made things harder,
| so I went elsewhere. If someone makes a truly better
| solution, AI or not, doctors will use it without being
| forced.
|
| And government offices don't even care to begin with, you
| have no other choice.
| pms wrote:
| Great points!
|
| The only thing I'd add: I don't think the responsibility for
| lack of automation is solely on these other industries. To
| develop this kind of automation, they need funds and IT
| experts, but (i) they don't have funds, especially in the US,
| since they aren't as well funded as IT industry, (ii) for the
| IT industry this kind of automation is boring, they prefer
| working on AI.
|
| In my view, the overall issue is that capitalism is prone to
| herding and hype, and resulting suboptimal collective decision-
| making.
| heywire wrote:
| I know this wasn't really your point, but most physicians
| around me use Epic MyChart, so I can book all that online. I
| also almost exclusively use email to communicate with our
| school district, and we're in a small town.
| whizzter wrote:
| In Sweden doctors have a fair bit of automation/systems around
| them, the sad part is that much of it has been co-opted for
| more stringent records keeping,etc that's just making doctors
| unhappy and ballooning administration costs instead of focusing
| on bringing better care for patients.
|
| In essense, we've saved 50 lives a year by avoiding certain
| mistakes with better record keeping and killed 5000 since the
| medical queues are too long due to busy doctors so people don't
| bother getting help in time.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I have a faint to noticable but persistent back pain. It
| should be checked out but I do not want to cause bigger pain
| and mental strain than caused by the back pain by talking to
| 3-4 persons sending me around and putting me in phone queues
| weeks apart just to see a doctor sometime in the future -
| with my embarrassingly low priority issue - making mountains
| of paperworks bored having too little time to diagnose me
| (that have the risk of leading to even bigger pile of
| paperwork). It's a different country, life is all the same.
| TheKarateKid wrote:
| I completely agree, especially with the taking away the
| creative part and leaving us with the chores.
|
| Doctors have exams, residencies, and limited licenses to give
| out to protect their industry. Meanwhile, tech companies will
| give an engineering job to someone who took a 4 month bootcamp.
| dionian wrote:
| > I don't want generative AI in my phone. I want someone, or
| something to book a meeting with my family doctor, the head of
| my son's future primary school, etc. I don't need AI to do
| that.
|
| If someone can do that more productively with Gen AI, do you
| care?
| kolinko wrote:
| As for government - depends on a country. In Poland we have an
| mCitizen (mObywatel) mobile app that allows to handle more
| things tear by year, and we have internet sites with unified
| citizen login for most of the other government interactions.
|
| The last time our IRS wanted sth from me, they just e-mailed
| me, I replied and the issue was solved in 5 minutes.
|
| Oh, and you don't need any paper ids within the country -
| driver license, car registration and official citizen id are
| apps on your phone, and if you don't have your phone when say
| police catches you, you give them your data and they check it
| with their database and with your photo to confirm.
| gambiting wrote:
| You don't have to walk to the local government office to get
| car registration plates anymore? That was always annoying as
| hell.
| nox101 wrote:
| > The last time our IRS wanted sth from me, they just
| e-mailed me, I replied and the issue was solved in 5 minutes.
|
| Lol, that will never happen in the USA. We have companies
| like Intuit actively lobbying against making things easy
| because their entire business is claiming to deal with the
| complexity for you.
| brundolf wrote:
| Social problems are the hard ones, information problems are the
| easy ones. So the latter are the low-hanging fruit that gets
| solved first
| prepend wrote:
| I've had some success with google assistant calling restaurants
| to make reservations, when they are phone only. I expect it's a
| matter of time until they can camp on my doctors office. Or
| call my insurance and pretend to be me.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| >some success with google assistant calling
|
| The funny thing is, these auto-callers don't even need to be
| successful. They just need to become common enough for
| restaurants and doctors to get annoyed to the point where
| they finally bring their processes to the 21st century.
| olliepop wrote:
| > I need the other industries (medical/government/education) to
| wake up and let us automate them.
|
| And this right here, with respect, is why everybody hates us.
| While arrogantly claiming moral superiority we automate every
| other industry on the planet, destroy outdated incumbent
| business models, and capture supply chains for our good.
|
| But if we threaten our own economic benefit, then AI is moving
| too fast, must be regulated, or is _too stupid_ to understand
| the _nuances_ and satisfy the edge cases that we can.
| runeb wrote:
| I share your frustration on services that won't let you
| automate them, but to me that's precisely what generative AI
| will let you do. You don't need an API at the family doctors to
| have AI automate it for you. It just rings them up and sorts it
| out at your command. AI is like obtaining an API to anything
| xnx wrote:
| Interesting that genmoji seems to recreate the functionality of
| this SDXL LoRA https://civitai.com/models/140968/emoji-xl
| blixt wrote:
| Did I miss the explanation of how they trained their image
| generation models? It's brave of a company serving creative
| professionals to generate creative works with AI. I'm a fan of
| using generative AI, but I would have expected them to at least
| say a little about what they trained on to make their diffusion
| models capable of generating these images.
|
| Other than that, using an LLM to handle cross-app functionality
| is music to my ears. That said, it's similar to what was
| originally promised with Siri etc. initially. I do believe this
| technology can do it good enough to be actually useful though.
| glial wrote:
| I thought it was interesting that the only image generation
| they support are sketches (that look like a photoshop styling)
| and goofy 3d cartoons -- not really competition with most
| creatives.
| hawski wrote:
| This ramping up AI war will leave no prisoners. I am not an Apple
| customer in any way, I am in Google's ecosystem, but I feel that
| I need to make an exit, at least some essentials, preferably this
| year.
|
| My e-mail, my documents, my photos, my browsing, my movement. The
| first step for me was setting up Syncthing and it was much
| smoother than I initially thought. Many steps to go.
| sircastor wrote:
| I haven't adopted passcodes, and moved all my email out of
| gmail to a private domain. Photos backup t to my NAS. I'm
| terrified of the automated systems deciding I'm a bad actor.
|
| I can't help but think it'll get worse with AI
| its_ethan wrote:
| Not that you shouldn't do it, but too much of an active
| effort or obsession with not using standard e-mail services
| or photo back ups is probably a faster way to get flagged as
| suspicious lol
| jwrallie wrote:
| For things that don't leave your system it's ok, but the moment
| you send something to others it will go into the systems that
| you try to avoid anyway.
|
| Mostly I see no point in things like email self hosting if half
| my contacts are on Gmail and the other half on Microsoft.
|
| My suggestion (as someone that tried to escape for some time)
| is to build a private system for yourself (using private OS and
| networks) and use a common system to interface with everyone
| else.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Couldn't Siri already do some of these things without LLM's?
| iandanforth wrote:
| I think the only way I would trust this is if they explicitly
| described how they would combat 5-eyes surveillance. If you're
| not willing to acknowledge that the most dangerous foe of privacy
| in the western world is the _governments_ of the western world
| then why should I believe anything you have to say about your
| implementation?
| mihaaly wrote:
| Cloud compute and privacy in the same sentence, this is a new low
| bar for corporate bull*hit. Almost worse than the Windows Recall
| nonsense.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| It's also auditable, they mentioned it multiple times.
|
| Apple specifically doesn't want to know your shit, they're
| jumping through weird hoops to keep it that way.
|
| It would be a LOT easier just to know your shit.
| tekawade wrote:
| "privacy in AI" - If apple is sharing with ChatGPT how does it
| work? Do they try to remove context information. But still it's
| sharing a lot more. + Anything that goes out can go anywhere in
| internet. Look at Facebook, Twitter and even Apple use of data.
| ryankrage77 wrote:
| The image generation seems really bad. Very creepy, offputting,
| uncanny-valley images. And that's the the best cherry-picked
| examples for marketing.
|
| I'm curious to try some of the Siri integrations - though I hope
| Siri retains a 'dumb mode' for simple tasks.
| resfirestar wrote:
| The Image Playground demos contrast pretty strongly, in a bad
| way, with how image generation startups like Stability typically
| emphasize scifi landscapes and macro images in their marketing
| material. We're more open to strange color palettes and overly
| glossy looking surfaces in those types of images, so they're a
| good fit for current models that can run on smaller GPUs. Apple's
| examples of real people and places, on the other hand, look like
| they're deep in uncanny valley and I'm shocked anyone wanted them
| in a press release. More than any other feature announced today,
| that felt like they just got on the hype bandwagon and shipped
| image generation features to please AI-hungry investors, not
| create anything real people want to use.
| mihaaly wrote:
| I can't wait until making tools for users will be the centerpiece
| of device development again instead of this corporate crap
| enforcement about half cooked whatevers acting on our behalf
| pretending to be a different us (I intentionally avoid the word
| intelligence, it is the mockery of the word that is going on all
| around).
|
| Who will trust in anything coming from anyone through electonic
| channels? Not me. Sooner start to talk to a teddy bear or a
| yellow rubber duck.
|
| This is a bad and dangerous tendency that corporate biggheads
| piss up with glares and fanfares so the crowd get willing to
| drink with amaze.
|
| The whole text is full of corporate bullsh*t, hollow and cloudy
| stock phrases from a thick pipe - instead of facts or data - a
| generative cloud computing server room could pour at us without a
| shread of thoughts.
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| About time. I was saying that Apple is cooking these features,
| especially intelligent Siri, for the past 1.5 years. It was
| obvious really.
|
| You can clearly see only people objecting to this new
| technological integration are the people who don't have a use
| case for it yet. I am a college student and I can immediately see
| how me and my friends will be using these features. All of us
| have ChatGPT installed and subscribed already. We need to write
| professionally to our professors in e-mail. A big task is to
| locate a document sent over various communication channels.
|
| Now is the time you'll see people speaking to their devices on
| street. As an early adopter using the dumb Siri and ChatGPT voice
| chat far more than average person, it has always been weird to
| speak to your phone in public. Surely the normalization will
| follow the general availability soon after.
| Nition wrote:
| Aside from the search and Siri improvements, I'm really not sure
| about the usefulness of all the generative stuff Apple is
| suggesting we might use here.
|
| If you spend an hour drawing a picture for someone for their
| birthday and send it to them, a great deal of the value to them
| is not in the quality of the picture but in the fact that you
| went to the effort, and that it's something unique only you could
| produce for them by giving your time. The work is more satisfying
| to the creator as well - if you've ever used something you built
| yourself that you're proud of vs. something you bought you must
| have felt this. The AI image that Tania generated in a few
| seconds might be fun the first time, but quickly becomes just
| spam filling most of a page of conversation, adding nothing.
|
| If you make up a bedtime story for your child, starring them,
| with the things they're interested in, a great deal of the value
| to them is not in the quality of the story but... same thing as
| above. I don't think Apple's idea of reading an AI story off your
| phone instead is going to have the same impact.
|
| In a world where you can have anything the value of everything is
| nothing.
| rising-sky wrote:
| You could say the same thing for sending a Happy Birthday text,
| versus a hand written letter or card. Nothing is stopping a
| person from sending the latter today, and yes they are more
| appreciated, but people also appreciate the text. For example,
| if you're remote and perhaps don't have that deep of a
| relationship with them
| anon22981 wrote:
| Your analogy does not apply at all.
| Nition wrote:
| I guess the question is, is sending an AI Happy Birthday
| image better than sending a Happy Birthday text?
| cchance wrote:
| Nope their identical, but the AI one at least looks cool
| lol
| nperrier wrote:
| I would argue the same thing applies when you buy a card from
| Hallmark
| Nition wrote:
| I sometimes think the physical world has been going through a
| similar time, where most of what we own and receive is
| ephemeral, mass-produced, lacking in real significance. We
| have a lot more now but it often means a lot less.
| bredren wrote:
| I've got a fairly sophisticated and detailed story world I've
| been building up with my kid, it always starts the same way and
| there are known characters.
|
| We've been building this up for some time, this tiny universe
| is the most common thing for me to respond to "will you tell me
| a story?" (something that is requested sometimes several times
| a day) since it is so deeply ingrained in both our heads.
|
| Yesterday, while driving to pick up burritos, I dictated a
| broad set of detailed points, including the complete
| introductory sequence to the story to gpt-4o and asked it to
| tell a new adventure based on all of the context.
|
| It did an amazing job at it. I was able to see my kid's
| reaction in the reflection of the mirrors and it did not take
| away from what we already had. It actually gave me some new
| ideas on where I can take it when I'm doing it myself.
|
| If people lean on gen ai with none of their own personal,
| creative contributions they're not going to get interesting
| results.
|
| But I know you can go to the effort to create and create and
| create and then on top of that layer on gen AI--it can knock it
| out of the park.
|
| In this way, I see gen AI capabilities as simply another tool
| that can be used best with practice, like a synthesizer after
| previously only having a piano or organ.
| Nition wrote:
| That's a very valid rebuttal to my comment. I think this kind
| of "force multiplier" use for AI is the most effective one we
| have right now; I've noticed the same thing with GPT-4 for
| programming. I know the code well enough to double check the
| output, but AI can still save time in writing it, or
| sometimes come up with a strategy that I may not have.
|
| Maybe the fact that you did the dictation together with your
| child present is also notable. Even though you used the AI,
| you were still doing an activity together and they see you
| doing it for them.
| skybrian wrote:
| The value of a gift isn't solely on how much you worked on it
| or what you spent on it. It can also be in picking out the
| right one, if you picked something good.
|
| Context will be more important when the gift itself is easy.
| cchance wrote:
| LOL that image you painstakingly created is also forgotten not
| long after being given to most people, just because you know
| the effort that went in doesn't mean the receiving person does
| 99.9% of the time.
|
| Same thing for your kid, the kid likes both stories, gives 0
| shit that you used GenAI or sat up for 8 hours trying to figure
| out the rhyme, those things are making YOU feel better not the
| person receiving it.
| tines wrote:
| > those things are making YOU feel better not the person
| receiving it
|
| I don't think this is true at all. Love is proportional to
| cost; if it costs me nothing, then the love it represents is
| nothing.
|
| When we receive something from someone, we estimate what it
| cost them based on what we know of them. Until recently, if
| someone wrote a poem just for us, our estimation of that
| would often be pretty high because we know approximately what
| it costs to write a poem.
|
| In modern times, that cost calculation is thrown off, because
| we don't know whether they wrote it themselves (high cost) or
| generated it (low/no cost).
| cromka wrote:
| What a cynical take!
| frereubu wrote:
| I think it would be clear that the picture was drawn for the
| person - I imagine most people would explicitly say something
| like "I drew this for you" in the accompanying message. And I
| don't know what kind of kids you've been hanging around, but
| my daughter would _definitely_ appreciate a story that I
| spent some time thinking up rather than "here's something
| ChatGPT came up with". I guess that assumes you're not going
| to lie to kids about the AI-generated being yours, but that's
| another issue entirely.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| "With onscreen awareness, Siri will be able to understand and
| take action with users' content in more apps over time. For
| example, if a friend texts a user their new address in Messages,
| the receiver can say, "Add this address to his contact card.""
|
| Little annoyances like this being fixed would be great. "Open the
| address on this page in google maps" better work :)
| qmmmur wrote:
| Did they touch on any AI features that might be able to help me
| create shortcuts? I really like them, but hate creating them with
| the kludgy block-based diagrams.
| camcaine wrote:
| Feels like Apple are super late to the party and are scrambling.
| And it showed.
| hartator wrote:
| It's a little messy.
|
| Local LLMs + Apple Private Cloud LLMs + OpenAI LLMs. It's like
| they can't decide on one solution. Feels very not Apple.
| daralthus wrote:
| /Time for a good prompt injection email header/s
| rdl wrote:
| I'm super excited about how the apple private compute cloud stuff
| works -- I tried to build this using intel TXT (predecessor of
| SGX) and then SGX, and Intel has fucked up so hard and for so
| long that I'm excited by any new silicon for this. AWS Nitro is
| really the direct competition, but having good APIs which let app
| developers do stuff on-device and in some trustworthy/private
| cloud in a fairly seamless way might be the key innovation here.
| guhcampos wrote:
| Somehow all these news about Apple Intelligence don't really make
| me thinkg about Apple, but just how bad Intel just lost the
| branding battle forever.
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| Apple Intelligence = AI
|
| Figgin' brilliant.
| ENGNR wrote:
| Ok I'm calling it. If NVIDIA releases a phone, and allows you to
| buy the hardware for the off-device processing too, I'll fully
| ditch Apple in a heartbeat.
|
| I'm quite creeped out that it uses off-device processing for a
| personal context, and you can't host your own off-device
| processing, even if you have top of the line Apple silicon
| hardware (laptop or desktop) that could step in and do the job.
| Hopefully they announce it in one of the talks over the next few
| days.
| lz400 wrote:
| I suppose it was to be expected by IMHO this takes the wind out
| of the sails of the OpenAI / Apple deal. In the end they don't
| let OpenAI get into the internals of iOS / Siri, it's just a run
| of the mill integration. They actually are competing with ChatGPT
| and I assume eventually they expect to replace it and cancel the
| integration.
|
| The OpenAI integration also seems setup to data mine ChatGPT.
| They will have data that says Customer X requested question Q and
| got answer A from Siri, which he didn't like and went to ChatGPT
| instead, and got answer B, which he liked. Ok, there's a training
| set.
|
| I'm always wrong in prediction and will be wrong here but I'd
| expect openAI is a bad spot long term, doesn't look like they
| have a product strong enough to withstand the platform builders
| really going in AI. Once Siri works well, you will never open
| ChatGPT again.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-10 23:00 UTC)