Editorial: More companies need to temper their Artificial Intelligence with authentic ethi...

Posted:
in iPhone edited May 25
When Apple outlined that its new HomePod didn't initiate phone calls on its own, nobody jumped to the conclusion that this was because having a device in your home that anyone's voice could use to place a telephone call from your personal mobile number might be a bad idea. Instead, the company was generally lambasted for "again" failing to match one of the many features of Amazon's Alexa Echo always-listening appliances.




This week, Alexa got famous for recording a private conversation and automatically sending it to a random contact of the owner. That's something HomePod doesn't do, not because Apple doesn't know how, but because Apple chose not to rush to make it possible to do things that might not be a good idea in the long run.

The people who celebrate Yes vs the company that says No

The same restraint Apple exercises in saying No to product ideas is also used to cautiously hold up the deployment of features while spending time thinking about the potential of unintended consequences.

This is not appreciated by most members of the tech media, who are paid to create content that celebrates what's new. They hate it when Apple says No to anything.

This was true in the days before the App Store, when Steve Jobs got flack for explaining that Apple was thinking carefully about the pros and cons of running third-party software on an always-connected mobile device full of personal information. Apple was also cynically criticized for not allowing the "side-loading" of apps from other sources. Google was cheered for allowing this until it was recognized to be an extremely bad idea that resulted in serious problems. Apple's pattern of authentic ethics--doing the right thing for its customers, rather than treating them as a product to sell to advertisers--has attracted the most valuable demographic of hardware consumers in the history of technology

Apple was also cautious about restricting third parties to access users' location data, contacts and calendar and it pioneered efforts to block iOS device ad tracking by web-style cookies. It built device encryption into iPhones years before Google even attempted it. iMessage and FaceTime deployed end-to-end encryption before anyone knew they needed it. When it created ApplePay, it kept users' transactions private rather than recording it all for its own future analytics.

Advertisers hated Apple's dominance in hardware because these restrictions affect their ability to manipulate users. Many third-party developers have also railed against Apple's restrictive Nos. But for Apple, saying no wasn't a show or a series of irrational rulemaking. It was authentic, ethical concern for the users of its products.

Over the past decade, Apple's pattern of authentic ethics--doing the right thing for its customers, rather than treating them as a product to sell to advertisers--has attracted the most valuable demographic of hardware consumers in the history of technology.

Why HomePod doesn't record your conversation and send it to a contact

It's pretty dumb to think that Apple simply couldn't figure out how to make HomePod work as a speakerphone. Siri on iPhone has had the ability to make hands free speakerphone calls since iOS 8.3 in 2015, and this has also been a key hands free feature of CarPlay. But when putting Siri in a new HomePod form factor, Apple spent an unusual amount of time considering the potential consequences of the new design.

In developing HomePod, Apple wasn't just racing out a feature set that could be compared against Amazon and Google. Instead, it was developing HomePod's advanced speaker technology at its own pace, throttled by authentic ethical contemplation--a regulator that Appel's rivals rarely seem to consult.


Apple focused on specific things HomePod could do, rather than making it a wide open platform for third party experimention in your home


Apple has time to make such methodical decisions about ethical issues because it's not racing to catch up in the mobile world. Apple owns virtually all premium phone sales, dominates tablets, sells the most premium notebooks and makes the most watches of any vendor globally--including virtually all of those used with a voice assistant.

Despite the desperate media narrative that presents Apple as lagging behind in the largely worthless "home surveillance and voice shopping" market (a tiny sliver of the products Siri touches, and by far the least valuable sub-segment of voice-assistant hardware), Apple is actually the largest vendor of voice assistant devices by units, by dollars and by region and language. Apple's Siri is vastly larger than Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant.

That does not at all mean that Siri is better in every respect than its rivals. There are a variety of things Siri simply can't do, for less than obvious reasons. For example, it can translate English phrases into a variety of languages but can't go the other direction to translate foreign phrases. Rivals have shown off impressive leaps that best Siri in a variety of areas

Rivals have shown off impressive leaps that best Siri in a variety of areas: conversational threads (rather than having to speak each command separately), being able to identify individual speakers, interfacing with a wide variety of third-party services and so on.

Some of these advantages over today's Siri are the product of Amazon, Google (and even Microsoft) working really hungrily to establish some relevance in an emerging potential market after failing to significantly capitalize on mobile phone hardware, on tablets, on watches or wearables. But the fact is that Apple has decisively won in every category as its rivals dumped out a series of flops and giveaways.

In part, this was aided by Apple's adherence to authentically ethical practices rather than blindly racing to shovel out new features without any thoughtful curation or to dive into unsustainable low pricing. While Apple's Siri trails the bleeding edge of voice assistants in several significant ways, the company is positioned to catch up, without any desperate need for racing its efforts.

Apple's authentically ethical tortoise wins more races than the variety of thoughtless, bargain-priced hares that have raced it in the past. Media spectators keep judging Apple as if it's in a race with the calendar or the feature set of its competitors when in reality, Apple's race is a cyclical buying pattern where customers vote with their dollars, over and over.


Ten years after iPhone, Apple is selling peak volumes of luxury hardware in multiple categories as rivals struggle in a shrinking market

Ethics and authenticity

When relentlessly locked in a high-speed race and seeking to catch up, it's easy to lose sight of ethics and instead simply grasp desperately at what looks like it could be money. But when you shed your ethics, or simply pretend to be ethical in your actions, it's readily apparent to others because humans are generally pretty good at detecting authenticity in actions--particularly the ones who make the best customers.

Microsoft's desperation to be cool in the days of Zune (trying to catch up with iPod) allowed it to sexualize teens in its marketing, cheapening its brand while not authentically reaching the audience it was posing for. It spent years rolling out a variety of new technologies and unique features but didn't ever capture enough attention from buyers to support its efforts. Zune is now dead.

Google's desperate efforts to muscle into phones with its largest-ever acquisition of Motorola (massively larger than anything Apple has ever bought), along with its parallel efforts with Nexus and Pixel brands, have pushed fictions about wanting to build phones in America, waiting to offer new tech cheaply to the masses and wanting to help developers create important, world-changing AI solutions.

Yet Google was also quick to fire its American workers and sell Motorola to China, to blow up the prices of its Pixel devices to match or exceed Apple, and has tied many of its technical AI developments to proprietary Pixel hardware even as it warbles about the openness of Android.

To anyone with any sensitivity to obnoxious, grating noise, Google's PR songs extolling its own righteousness and aversion to evil are a stomach-turning series of brown notes. And commercially, all of Google's product concerts have only attracted thin, cheap-seat crowds that haven't managed to keep the theater lights on.

Amazon made a big splash over the last year in gaining attention for its voice-first Alexa technology salvaged from its failed shopping-oriented Fire Phone. Paired with its WiFi microphone, Alexa Echo accomplishes for Amazon what Likes did for Facebook and what cookies did for Google: it creates a background spying mechanism to harvest behavioral data on millions of users.

However, without authentic ethics to tether its use and restrict it from doing things it "can do but shouldn't," Amazon will increasingly find itself having to repeat apologies and excuses for lapses like the one that just happened. Just like Facebook does.

Racing to build and deploy features first and then consider the outcomes only after they surface as problems is not only a bad way to do business but is also bad for business.

Wearables demand authentic ethics, too

If authenticity and ethics seem important in home appliances that sit in the background and listen to what you're saying virtually all the time, they're even more desperately needed on devices users trust to carry or wear on their person. That's the future of wearables, and Apple is taking these considerations seriously.


AirPods bring Siri with you--as an assistant, to not to listen and track everything you do


Access to personal, identifying, private and confidential information can be very useful to drive artificial intelligence engines that suggest routes, purchases, phrasing or other information before we can think to ask. But this data also needs to be handled responsibly, and policies need to authentically consider ethical issues before they become corporate quandaries.

So far, Apple is deeply invested in pursuing such thoughtful contemplative efforts, while its rivals do not even seem to recognize this as an issue. That's not going to work out well for them.
lkruppwatto_cobra
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 106
    My response to this editorial is a new variant on Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to 'authentic ethics' that which is adequately explained by an inferior product and dumb luck."

    "Authentic Ethics" is a visionary-type person who understands what Siri *should* do, and then implements it. Wake me up when anyone at Apple articulates this vision.  Saying "Security!" as the reason why your product doesn't do xyz isn't a vision, or ethics; it's just an excuse. At best it's a halfplanation.
    adm1avon b7holyonerobbyxtallest skil78Banditlarryaivanh
  • Reply 2 of 106
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,992member
    Like prescription drugs all technology advances have side effects, some good, some bad. If Apple is really thinking about this stuff before deploying then I’m happy as can be. Can you even imagine what would have happened if the Amazon Alexa privacy failure had happened on a HomePod? Instead, last night on the NBC Nightly News, there was a 20 second blurb about it in the form of a “Privacy Alert.” If it had been an Apple device the Internet would have caught on fire, AAPL would dropped like a rock, class action lawsuits would come out of the woodwork, forums like AI would be choked to a standstill because of the traffic. But since it was Amazon Echo/Alexa there was barely a mention anywhere. And that’s why Apple must take extra special caution before it deploys features. I take their word that they are indeed committed to user privacy.
    2old4funandrewj5790randominternetpersonMuntzbshankradarthekatbrucemcboltsfan17cornchipracerhomie3
  • Reply 3 of 106
    So far, Apple is deeply invested in pursuing such thoughtful contemplative efforts, while its rivals do not even seem to recognize this as an issue. That's not going to work out well for them.
    That seems like a logical conclusion but based on the minimal fallout that Facebook has had since the whole CA thing, I’m not sure how accurate it is.  

    It’s interesting that CA had to close down because their business tanked, but Facebook, the originator of the data collection that CA used, seems to have only been slightly bruised.

    Considering that, I’m not sure many people care about ethics or privacy.
    SpamSandwichwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 106
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 539member
    I care about my privacy, don't have a FB account, don't use my real name "anywhere", use a VPN daily, and Siri.... I wouldn't use it even if it was actually useful. 
    edited May 25
  • Reply 5 of 106
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    muthuk_vanalingamDracarys78Banditlarrya
  • Reply 6 of 106
    eideardeideard Posts: 346member
    “Authentic ethics” in a nation where education has been going downhill for over 60 years - is about as useful as “thoughts and prayers”.
    muthuk_vanalingammaciekskontaktradarthekattallest skilcornchipJohnnyCanadianjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 106
    sfolaxsfolax Posts: 21member
    Google has Voice match, which has been around since 2015.

    It identifies the person by their voice, so only you can unlock your phone with OK Google or access your own data. So you won't be able to do that in any case unless you sound alike or the person enabled Guest mode.

    Let's also not forget that to use someone's Alexa or Home you usually need to be in their house in the first place.
    JohnnyCanadian
  • Reply 8 of 106
    DanielEranDanielEran Posts: 290editor
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

    However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

    a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
    b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
    c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
    d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)
    brucemctmaymattinoznick05jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 106
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    I already think they do have this, When lying in bed with our phones on the nightstand, I can say ‘Hey Siri’ and only my phone lights up; when my better half says it, only her phone activates. I think this is just something that is not advertised until they are completely confident in it. Kind of like the approach to water resistance. Sure they didn’t advertise it until the 7 came out, but before then people would tell stories of accidentally dropping their 6 or 6s’ into the toilet and it being okay. 
    brucemccornchipjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 106
    So far, Apple is deeply invested in pursuing such thoughtful contemplative efforts, while its rivals do not even seem to recognize this as an issue. That's not going to work out well for them.
    That seems like a logical conclusion but based on the minimal fallout that Facebook has had since the whole CA thing, I’m not sure how accurate it is.  

    It’s interesting that CA had to close down because their business tanked, but Facebook, the originator of the data collection that CA used, seems to have only been slightly bruised.

    Considering that, I’m not sure many people care about ethics or privacy.
    I doubt more than 5% of consumers on the entire planet care about personal privacy. Most people have nothing worthwhile to hide from anyone except some little white lies. If Apple wants to go about advocating privacy, that's fine, but Apple is going to end up dead last when it comes to intelligent assistants. The best assistants know everything about the person they're working for. It would be stupid to hide things from your own assistant because you'd be hurting their efficiency.  Siri is considered the most stupid assistant because Apple is handicapping Siri in so many ways. Apple should have had its own search engine database by now and not having one is a serious drawback to any intelligent assistant. A really good assistant needs to be able to gather as much data as possible about everything. What annoys me most is that Apple can EASILY afford to buy or create a massive database, but chooses not to.

    Zuckerberg and Facebook are doing absolutely fine no matter how much data they harvest from consumers. Ethics are for losers and Zuckerberg is a winner. Zuckerberg is practically a god on Wall Street because his highly profitable business can't be touched by any regulating bodies. Since the data-harvesting scandal, Facebook is doing as well as it ever was. So much for consumers worrying over loss of personal privacy. If consumers don't care what happens to their personal data, why should anyone else care for them? Tim Cook going around telling people that privacy is a right is simply wasting his breath. If anything, the Feds are going to keep going after Apple because they hate the idea of iPhone encryption. The Feds believe everyone should be snooped upon and that nothing remains a secret. Apple is now the criminal for not letting the intelligence agencies have a back-door to iPhones. Apple is said to be protecting criminals and terrorists, so screw consumer privacy.

    The companies that data-harvest 24/7 are the ones that will always have the most value because they're turning high profits using endless amounts of free information. Almost no one cares about personal privacy, so it seems to me companies might as well use it to their heart's content. The way I see it, Apple is going to be the biggest loser for taking an ethical stance over privacy. Tim Cook obviously doesn't understand how much consumers love "free" services and they're willing to hand over their souls to keep those "free" services. To most consumers personal privacy isn't worth anything, so giving it up is not such a big deal.

    When it comes to big business, having ethics is like trying to swim with an anchor tied around your neck. Only profits matter to investors and they don't care how profits are obtained. That's why the big hedge funds started loading up on Facebook stock despite the data-leak scandal. They surely didn't say, "Facebook is unethical, let's buy Apple instead."
    edited May 25 likethesky
  • Reply 11 of 106
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

    However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

    a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
    b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
    c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
    d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)
    b) it's trying to sell devices that people love so I don't see how your point about how Amazon/Google make money is relevant
    b) not sure how this is relevant to smart speakers. Google makes money from advertising, Amazon from retail
    c) same goes for Google/Amazon, who both have hundreds of millions/billions of users
    d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
    singularity
  • Reply 12 of 106
    sfolaxsfolax Posts: 21member
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

    However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

    a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
    b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
    c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
    d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)
    b) it's trying to sell devices that people love so I don't see how your point about how Amazon/Google make money is relevant
    b) not sure how this is relevant to smart speakers. Google makes money from advertising, Amazon from retail
    c) same goes for Google/Amazon, who both have hundreds of millions/billions of users
    d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
    I don't get point D either.

    Every few days we get an article telling us that Apple is the most profitable, sells the most phones, etc. Yet when it comes to scrutiny they need to be treated as the underdog and left alone. Sorry, but you can't be claiming to be #1 at a lot of things and then not expect to be treated differently.
    singularityavon b7larrya
  • Reply 13 of 106
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    I already think they do have this, When lying in bed with our phones on the nightstand, I can say ‘Hey Siri’ and only my phone lights up; when my better half says it, only her phone activates. I think this is just something that is not advertised until they are completely confident in it. Kind of like the approach to water resistance. Sure they didn’t advertise it until the 7 came out, but before then people would tell stories of accidentally dropping their 6 or 6s’ into the toilet and it being okay. 
    That's slightly different in that it's on each individual phone rather than two voices on one device but you are right, it shows the tech is there already. I don't see how Apple not including it in HomePod while its competitors do use it to limit who can access personal data is some triumph of Apple's ethics.  
    likethesky
  • Reply 14 of 106
    podlasekpodlasek Posts: 28member
    I like this editorial piece.

    Since Apple is so secretive, the 'media'/'analysts'/'bloggers'/et el seem to make up their own narrative as to why functions don't exist, don't work as well as competing products, or just don't. (most of which just before announcements that seem to manipulate the stock price)

    We already know that Apple seems to take privacy more seriously than pretty much every other tech company, as evidenced by the inability, or unwillingness, to unlock, crack, or add back-doors to their products for 'law enforcement'.

    There is further evidence that Apple does consider these things, in the delay of HomeKit certifications and the late requirements to require certain security chip usage so as not to diminish overall security, even making rare comments about the third parties lacking.

    All this stated, I do agree with both the opinion article and other comments, Apple has given up a substantial lead with Siri, when they maybe could have maintained privacy and be offering more, if not the same, as competitors.

    I also think that other comments are 110% correct, Apple is held to a much higher standard than everyone else when if Apple would have pulled a Facebook/Google with user data, or Siri would have sent a private conversation to anyone else, the Media and Public backlash would be never ending front page news and the stock would be in the toilet.
    StrangeDaysjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 106
    Whatever you do Siri and Alexa listens to what happens at your home. Good luck with life.
    eideard said:
    “Authentic ethics” in a nation where education has been going downhill for over 60 years - is about as useful as “thoughts and prayers”.
    Exactly! Learning corrupt patterns can be called AI, but not ethical. Do we want tht kind of AI to run people's lives? That may server political purposes easily and nobody said any politics is ethical.
  • Reply 16 of 106
    lkrupp said:
    Like prescription drugs all technology advances have side effects, some good, some bad. If Apple is really thinking about this stuff before deploying then I’m happy as can be. Can you even imagine what would have happened if the Amazon Alexa privacy failure had happened on a HomePod? Instead, last night on the NBC Nightly News, there was a 20 second blurb about it in the form of a “Privacy Alert.” If it had been an Apple device the Internet would have caught on fire, AAPL would dropped like a rock, class action lawsuits would come out of the woodwork, forums like AI would be choked to a standstill because of the traffic. But since it was Amazon Echo/Alexa there was barely a mention anywhere. And that’s why Apple must take extra special caution before it deploys features. I take their word that they are indeed committed to user privacy.
    Just wake up Alex Jones. He'll start up on how Amazon is trying to spy on everyone. 


  • Reply 17 of 106
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 2,828member
    My response to this editorial is a new variant on Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to 'authentic ethics' that which is adequately explained by an inferior product and dumb luck."

    "Authentic Ethics" is a visionary-type person who understands what Siri *should* do, and then implements it. Wake me up when anyone at Apple articulates this vision.  Saying "Security!" as the reason why your product doesn't do xyz isn't a vision, or ethics; it's just an excuse. At best it's a halfplanation.
    A lot of the issues with Siri aren’t because of their privacy stance. A simple example: Siri not being able to set multiple timers has nothing to do with privacy. Seems like both pro and anti Apple folks use privacy as the reason for Siri’s limitations.
    jony0
  • Reply 18 of 106
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 2,828member
    So far, Apple is deeply invested in pursuing such thoughtful contemplative efforts, while its rivals do not even seem to recognize this as an issue. That's not going to work out well for them.
    That seems like a logical conclusion but based on the minimal fallout that Facebook has had since the whole CA thing, I’m not sure how accurate it is.  

    It’s interesting that CA had to close down because their business tanked, but Facebook, the originator of the data collection that CA used, seems to have only been slightly bruised.

    Considering that, I’m not sure many people care about ethics or privacy.
    I hadn’t used Facebook in month and all of a sudden I started receiving text messages that so and so posted something. Took me a while to find where in settings to turn it off.
  • Reply 19 of 106
    I'm not sure I agree with the assumptions that this article is based on. Could Apple have developed something like Voice Match to differentiate between less personal accounts, e.g. News or Apple Music without opening up access to contacts or calling? If the issue was privacy not technology then why wouldn't they at least start with those? This looks very much like retrofitting a privacy excuse that was never the main reason for HomePod's limitations.
    The article doesn't say that every  HomePod limitation is an intentional privacy-based decision. 

    However, Apple is also not racing to rapidly throw out ideas in the voice category because:

    a) it's not an amazon/google with surveillance/ad/marketing motivations
    b) it's not behind in making money in mobile
    c) Apple's huge business requires it to think about things before it deploys them to hundreds of millions of users
    d) as Lkrupp noted above, Apple is scrutinized in the media the way other smaller companies are not (Google, Facebook, Amazon)
    d) from your point of view but I've not seen anything to validate it
    Are you completely unaware of “antenna-gate” and signal attenuation on iPhone 4? Signal attenuation was nothing new at the time but it exploded when exhibited on the iPhone 4.  Heck, I even had a manual to a previous phone that had a drawing of a hand holding that model of phone and basically saying if held in that way the signal may be affected.  Nobody cared.  But when Apple released a phone that exhibited the same behavior as other cell phones it was suddenly front page, screaming headlines news.

    That’s just one example.
    foregoneconclusionStrangeDayslkruppcornchiptmayjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 106
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,373moderator

    I’ll add a rare criticism of DED, which has been the philosophy of newspaper editors.  That being, never use a big word when a small word will do, never use two words when one will do.

    While I get the reference to artificial intelligence as the reason to create parallel structure with a term like authentic ethics, just ethics covers it.

    And while we’re at it (not related to DED or this article), I never much liked artificial intelligence as a term.  I know it refers to the origination of the intelligence, but it carries the unfortunate implication that this is a type of intelligence that isn’t genuine.  Like an artificial sweetener.  I much prefer the term machine intelligence as a means of differentiating from naturally evolved intelligence.  
    edited May 25 jony0
Sign In or Register to comment.