For anyone who thinks that AI is a passing fad, you are completely out of touch with reality.
AI is here to stay. It's doing some amazing things in the enterprise markets and if it can eke out 100 basis points in net profit for some Fortune 500 company, guess what? They're gonna use it.
I bet 99.9% of people on these tech news site discussion forums who say they don't use AI are over 30 years old. That's right. There's a generational gap in AI usage.
That's right pre-teens are using this stuff and some older teenagers even see the danger in young children using AI.
And the consumer AI industry is largely a lawless frontier right now, it needs heavy government regulation from world governments, not just your state's governor or 1600 Pennsylvania.
And many of today's consumer AI companies are really no better than tobacco companies. They are creating AI chatbots that look and behave like anime characters (Grok's assistants, SpicyChat AI, Character.AI, et cetera) to attract youngsters into interacting with them. It's the digital equivalent of adding candy flavors to vaping products.
Look at the way Grok started rolling out their AI anime-skinned assistants like Ani. They debuted on iPhones first, still not available on many Android devices. Why? Probably because iPhone is the platform of choice for young people (the under 25 market), especially teens.
If you care about the future of today's youngsters, the ones who will be tasked with fixing many of the world's problems, you need to pay attention to what AI is today, where it is going, who is using it, for what reasons, etc.
There's one oldtimer here who continually gripes about AI, fearing it will displace him from his job as a writer. AI's potential effects are far, Far, FAR greater than that.
Just sticking your head in the sand or plugging your ears and saying "I'm not using AI so nyah!" like a little brat throwing a tantrum isn't going to stop AI from proliferating. That much is clear in the 3+ years I've been closely following AI.
I think you’re mostly right that the AI naysayers are old. BUT — I think the old timers who do embrace AI have a potentially huge advantage over everyone else, because for them the AI replaces some of the junior colleagues who they previously would have delegated to. AI used by a seasoned veteran who has a deep understanding of their business can be much more powerful than AI used by a kiddo who knows very little about the real world.
You are one of a small minority of people here who seem to get it.
AI is a tool, a very powerful one in the hands of a skilled and experienced worker. It's a lousy and possibly dangerous tool for someone inexperienced, foolish, naive, etc. In many ways, AI is no different than a tool like a circular saw, a chainsaw, or a pneumatic drill.
Look at the whole Replit debacle from this past weekend. It happened to some venture capitalist guy who attempted to use the tool to write and deploy an app, i.e., not a professional coder.
Can a 15-year old use a table saw and create something useful? Back when I was in high school, there was a shop class. And yes, it was taught by someone with decades of experience who showed the students how to use the tools safely and effectively.
At some point the governments of this world will start regulating AI with increasing restrictions over time. Do you really believe that septuagenarian career politicians are the best people to be writing these guidelines? Older people really need to start taking some responsibility here and take some steps in educating themselves about AI.
Old people (including me) need to start exploring these tools and understand how they can used effectively as well as understand what their weaknesses are. The technology is evolving at a very rapid rate so just dabbling with one for a few minutes once or twice a year is not enough. But it's okay to try these out on small projects, something that's not going to cost you your life, your career, your family/friends, your bank account, etc.
One thing is pretty much guaranteed: some of these AI tools will get better, some of them will get worse.
We already have dullards recommending certain AI tools because they "sound human". Not the brightest method of selection. That would be like recommending a chainsaw because it has a cool stripe on the housing.
For anyone who thinks that AI is a passing fad, you are completely out of touch with reality.
AI is here to stay. It's doing some amazing things in the enterprise markets and if it can eke out 100 basis points in net profit for some Fortune 500 company, guess what? They're gonna use it.
I bet 99.9% of people on these tech news site discussion forums who say they don't use AI are over 30 years old. That's right. There's a generational gap in AI usage.
That's right pre-teens are using this stuff and some older teenagers even see the danger in young children using AI.
And the consumer AI industry is largely a lawless frontier right now, it needs heavy government regulation from world governments, not just your state's governor or 1600 Pennsylvania.
And many of today's consumer AI companies are really no better than tobacco companies. They are creating AI chatbots that look and behave like anime characters (Grok's assistants, SpicyChat AI, Character.AI, et cetera) to attract youngsters into interacting with them. It's the digital equivalent of adding candy flavors to vaping products.
Look at the way Grok started rolling out their AI anime-skinned assistants like Ani. They debuted on iPhones first, still not available on many Android devices. Why? Probably because iPhone is the platform of choice for young people (the under 25 market), especially teens.
If you care about the future of today's youngsters, the ones who will be tasked with fixing many of the world's problems, you need to pay attention to what AI is today, where it is going, who is using it, for what reasons, etc.
There's one oldtimer here who continually gripes about AI, fearing it will displace him from his job as a writer. AI's potential effects are far, Far, FAR greater than that.
Just sticking your head in the sand or plugging your ears and saying "I'm not using AI so nyah!" like a little brat throwing a tantrum isn't going to stop AI from proliferating. That much is clear in the 3+ years I've been closely following AI.
I think you’re mostly right that the AI naysayers are old. BUT — I think the old timers who do embrace AI have a potentially huge advantage over everyone else, because for them the AI replaces some of the junior colleagues who they previously would have delegated to. AI used by a seasoned veteran who has a deep understanding of their business can be much more powerful than AI used by a kiddo who knows very little about the real world.
You are one of a small minority of people here who seem to get it.
AI is a tool, a very powerful one in the hands of a skilled and experienced worker. It's a lousy and possibly dangerous tool for someone inexperienced, foolish, naive, etc. In many ways, AI is no different than a tool like a circular saw, a chainsaw, or a pneumatic drill.
Look at the whole Replit debacle from this past weekend. It happened to some venture capitalist guy who attempted to use the tool to write and deploy an app, i.e., not a professional coder.
Can a 15-year old use a table saw and create something useful? Back when I was in high school, there was a shop class. And yes, it was taught by someone with decades of experience who showed the students how to use the tools safely and effectively.
At some point the governments of this world will start regulating AI with increasing restrictions over time. Do you really believe that septuagenarian career politicians are the best people to be writing these guidelines? Older people really need to start taking some responsibility here and take some steps in educating themselves about AI.
Old people (including me) need to start exploring these tools and understand how they can used effectively as well as understand what their weaknesses are. The technology is evolving at a very rapid rate so just dabbling with one for a few minutes once or twice a year is not enough. But it's okay to try these out on small projects, something that's not going to cost you your life, your career, your family/friends, your bank account, etc.
One thing is pretty much guaranteed: some of these AI tools will get better, some of them will get worse.
We already have dullards recommending certain AI tools because they "sound human". Not the brightest method of selection. That would be like recommending a chainsaw because it has a cool stripe on the housing.
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
I really like where the author went with this article. If I had to sum it up with one sentence it would be that Apple doesn't have to come up with any excuses or apologies for where they currently are with Apple Intelligence because they have nothing to apologize or make excuses for. Apple never set out to dethrone any of the existing AI chatbots because that has never been the focus of their efforts.
I use AI every single day as a tool. The biggest challenge for me has little to do with AI or Apple Intelligence itself, it has more to do with how do I learn how to use the AI that is available to me most effectively for the things that I do. This is all still a steep learning curve to climb if you want to get any meaningful value from it. It's also evolving very rapidly and the signal to noise ratio will remain relatively high for a while. We simply don't know what the end state will be at this time.
To be clear, I'm not giving Apple a do-over or Mulligan here. Apple is staying on track and is still very intentionally executing on the plans they put in place years ago. The biggest problem with Apple Intelligence isn't Apple, it's us. When we stay locked in our entrenched pattern of treating everything in life as a zero sum game we are too quick to jump to conclusions based on misunderstandings, assumptions, and things we simply don't understand, or even try to understand.
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
If the only AI you use is Apple Intelligence then you're in no position to assess whether Apple is behind. I use an enterprise license for ChatGPT almost every day. Apple offers nothing like it -- they absolutely are behind in terms of offering a product that competes with what ChatGPT can do today. In terms of raw technology I agree that Apple has a lot going for them. But they have yet to create an AI product that is as useful as ChatGPT.
Accurately recognizing that they are behind is not the same thing as betting against them. I also would not bet against them. But I can open my eyes and see that for the moment, they are absolutely behind in this market with respect to actual products that are useful to people and worth paying for.
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
If the only AI you use is Apple Intelligence then you're in no position to assess whether Apple is behind. I use an enterprise license for ChatGPT almost every day. Apple offers nothing like it -- they absolutely are behind in terms of offering a product that competes with what ChatGPT can do today. In terms of raw technology I agree that Apple has a lot going for them. But they have yet to create an AI product that is as useful as ChatGPT.
Accurately recognizing that they are behind is not the same thing as betting against them. I also would not bet against them. But I can open my eyes and see that for the moment, they are absolutely behind in this market with respect to actual products that are useful to people and worth paying for.
Someone can assess a vehicle is fast without driving it. What are you using the enterprise ChatGPT license for? What product are you using that you believe Apple should be offering?
For anyone who thinks that AI is a passing fad, you are completely out of touch with reality.
AI is here to stay. It's doing some amazing things in the enterprise markets and if it can eke out 100 basis points in net profit for some Fortune 500 company, guess what? They're gonna use it.
I bet 99.9% of people on these tech news site discussion forums who say they don't use AI are over 30 years old. That's right. There's a generational gap in AI usage.
That's right pre-teens are using this stuff and some older teenagers even see the danger in young children using AI.
And the consumer AI industry is largely a lawless frontier right now, it needs heavy government regulation from world governments, not just your state's governor or 1600 Pennsylvania.
And many of today's consumer AI companies are really no better than tobacco companies. They are creating AI chatbots that look and behave like anime characters (Grok's assistants, SpicyChat AI, Character.AI, et cetera) to attract youngsters into interacting with them. It's the digital equivalent of adding candy flavors to vaping products.
Look at the way Grok started rolling out their AI anime-skinned assistants like Ani. They debuted on iPhones first, still not available on many Android devices. Why? Probably because iPhone is the platform of choice for young people (the under 25 market), especially teens.
If you care about the future of today's youngsters, the ones who will be tasked with fixing many of the world's problems, you need to pay attention to what AI is today, where it is going, who is using it, for what reasons, etc.
There's one oldtimer here who continually gripes about AI, fearing it will displace him from his job as a writer. AI's potential effects are far, Far, FAR greater than that.
Just sticking your head in the sand or plugging your ears and saying "I'm not using AI so nyah!" like a little brat throwing a tantrum isn't going to stop AI from proliferating. That much is clear in the 3+ years I've been closely following AI.
I think you’re mostly right that the AI naysayers are old. BUT — I think the old timers who do embrace AI have a potentially huge advantage over everyone else, because for them the AI replaces some of the junior colleagues who they previously would have delegated to. AI used by a seasoned veteran who has a deep understanding of their business can be much more powerful than AI used by a kiddo who knows very little about the real world.
You are one of a small minority of people here who seem to get it.
AI is a tool, a very powerful one in the hands of a skilled and experienced worker. It's a lousy and possibly dangerous tool for someone inexperienced, foolish, naive, etc. In many ways, AI is no different than a tool like a circular saw, a chainsaw, or a pneumatic drill.
Look at the whole Replit debacle from this past weekend. It happened to some venture capitalist guy who attempted to use the tool to write and deploy an app, i.e., not a professional coder.
Can a 15-year old use a table saw and create something useful? Back when I was in high school, there was a shop class. And yes, it was taught by someone with decades of experience who showed the students how to use the tools safely and effectively.
At some point the governments of this world will start regulating AI with increasing restrictions over time. Do you really believe that septuagenarian career politicians are the best people to be writing these guidelines? Older people really need to start taking some responsibility here and take some steps in educating themselves about AI.
Old people (including me) need to start exploring these tools and understand how they can used effectively as well as understand what their weaknesses are. The technology is evolving at a very rapid rate so just dabbling with one for a few minutes once or twice a year is not enough. But it's okay to try these out on small projects, something that's not going to cost you your life, your career, your family/friends, your bank account, etc.
One thing is pretty much guaranteed: some of these AI tools will get better, some of them will get worse.
We already have dullards recommending certain AI tools because they "sound human". Not the brightest method of selection. That would be like recommending a chainsaw because it has a cool stripe on the housing.
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
Seems like a lot of investment capital will be needed for AI dreams to come to fruition
"Sam Altman needs 100 million AI GPUs worth $3 trillion for his vision — after OpenAI was forced to do "unnatural things"
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
If the only AI you use is Apple Intelligence then you're in no position to assess whether Apple is behind. I use an enterprise license for ChatGPT almost every day. Apple offers nothing like it -- they absolutely are behind in terms of offering a product that competes with what ChatGPT can do today. In terms of raw technology I agree that Apple has a lot going for them. But they have yet to create an AI product that is as useful as ChatGPT.
Accurately recognizing that they are behind is not the same thing as betting against them. I also would not bet against them. But I can open my eyes and see that for the moment, they are absolutely behind in this market with respect to actual products that are useful to people and worth paying for.
Someone can assess a vehicle is fast without driving it. What are you using the enterprise ChatGPT license for? What product are you using that you believe Apple should be offering?
But you can't assess the difference between an EV and a combustion engine without ever driving the eV. It's a qualitatively different experience, and using ChatGPT is a qualitatively different thing than what Apple Intelligence is today. Actually, it's more like the difference between a go cart (Apple intelligence) and a Tesla Model S. If all you've done is drive go carts, you have zero clue what a Model S is like.
I can ask the o3 model to write an R Shiny app (what I'm doing right now) with so-and-so features and it does it. I can then iterate productively to refine the app. I can ask it why it did things and explain to me how various aspects of the code work, so that I learn more (I've used R forever but I'm new to Shiny). This effectively replaces a research assistant or programmer for me. It's a huge productivity boost.
For another example -- earlier today I asked ChatGPT whether there's a connection between conducting a fixed effects meta-analysis using weights to account for error covariance and conducting a principal components analysis. It explained the connection and then, based on remembering an earlier conversation, suggested how this connection applied to some other work I was doing. If I asked Siri anything like that the answer would be "here's what I found on the web"
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
If the only AI you use is Apple Intelligence then you're in no position to assess whether Apple is behind. I use an enterprise license for ChatGPT almost every day. Apple offers nothing like it -- they absolutely are behind in terms of offering a product that competes with what ChatGPT can do today. In terms of raw technology I agree that Apple has a lot going for them. But they have yet to create an AI product that is as useful as ChatGPT.
Accurately recognizing that they are behind is not the same thing as betting against them. I also would not bet against them. But I can open my eyes and see that for the moment, they are absolutely behind in this market with respect to actual products that are useful to people and worth paying for.
Someone can assess a vehicle is fast without driving it. What are you using the enterprise ChatGPT license for? What product are you using that you believe Apple should be offering?
But you can't assess the difference between an EV and a combustion engine without ever driving the eV. It's a qualitatively different experience, and using ChatGPT is a qualitatively different thing than what Apple Intelligence is today. Actually, it's more like the difference between a go cart (Apple intelligence) and a Tesla Model S. If all you've done is drive go carts, you have zero clue what a Model S is like.
I can ask the o3 model to write an R Shiny app (what I'm doing right now) with so-and-so features and it does it. I can then iterate productively to refine the app. I can ask it why it did things and explain to me how various aspects of the code work, so that I learn more (I've used R forever but I'm new to Shiny). This effectively replaces a research assistant or programmer for me. It's a huge productivity boost.
For another example -- earlier today I asked ChatGPT whether there's a connection between conducting a fixed effects meta-analysis using weights to account for error covariance and conducting a principal components analysis. It explained the connection and then, based on remembering an earlier conversation, suggested how this connection applied to some other work I was doing. If I asked Siri anything like that the answer would be "here's what I found on the web"
So, you want Apple Intelligence to be a totally different product? I get what you're saying but it's also kind of like asking why your Xbox can't double as a submersible. They're clearly different products with different goals. Apple Intelligence isn't a chatbot nor is it a vibe coding platform.
I'm glad you get those uses from ChatGPT, but that doesn't have any bearing on what Apple Intelligence can or can't do. (Between the two, I'd take the go cart, tbh)
It's not that I"m saying ChatGPT is bad or people that use it are bad. Let's take our opinion of AI and the ethical conundrums out of the equation entirely. Apple isn't building ChatGPT, why should it? Even when Siri is backed by an LLM, it won't be ChatGPT.
That's the problem here. People are comparing apples and oranges, literally. They're two different things.
Also, let's not so easily dismiss the use cases presented by each. How many people need to vibe code? How many are doing research? (however flawed research with an AI might be) Now compare that to how many people have iPhones capable of running Apple Intelligence that need to transform text, edit photos, or triage notifications.
It's not that ChatGPT isn't useful, it's clearly being used by millions, but what do users need? Apple may work towards something like a chatbot in the future, or offer third-party ones via Private Cloud Compute, but that isn't their goal today. Right now, Apple's clearly stated goals is to develop artificial intelligence that works privately to serve users in a way that isn't intrusive, and it's doing that.
What you're asking for is completely antithetical to Apple's goals. And the sooner nerds and pundits realize that, the happier they will be. Because if you go to McDonalds and order steak, you're going to get laughed out of the room. In the end, Apple will be the true powerhouse in AI because it's actually taking a human approach to its product instead of trying to convince everyone of a delusion of grandeur.
Apple is in a tough spot with AI. For some new entrant they can show off some whiz bang demo and if it gets it right the pundits cheer. If there are some misses they get ignored.
Apple is not a new entrant. Apple has well over a billion users who trust Apple, a lot. Parents hand their kids iPads with all sorts of kids games trusting that this is OK. If an iPad with AI just once started showing children something inappropriate that would be all over the news.
On the other hand, Apple is famous and has a number of successes to point to so people expect a lot of them.
The next version of macOS does contain a chatbot, sort of. Gary at MacMost posted a video showing how to use Shortcuts to make a chatbot that queried either the completely on-device AI, Apple’s own AppleAI on Apple servers, or ChatGPT. Apparently, macOS ships with ~4GB of data needed for the on-device AI to call on.
I think there's some truth in the middle here. AI is a tool, and can be useful, in certain circumstances. I've never dismissed it as a passing fad, but I do think the hype around it is overblown nonsense from those seeking investment capital. I use AI every day (Apple Intelligence) and I benefit from it. Apple is leading the market in creating powerful, on-device, private, and secure models while also allowing users private access to leading AI platforms. It'll prove to be an incredible combination over time.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
If the only AI you use is Apple Intelligence then you're in no position to assess whether Apple is behind. I use an enterprise license for ChatGPT almost every day. Apple offers nothing like it -- they absolutely are behind in terms of offering a product that competes with what ChatGPT can do today. In terms of raw technology I agree that Apple has a lot going for them. But they have yet to create an AI product that is as useful as ChatGPT.
Accurately recognizing that they are behind is not the same thing as betting against them. I also would not bet against them. But I can open my eyes and see that for the moment, they are absolutely behind in this market with respect to actual products that are useful to people and worth paying for.
Someone can assess a vehicle is fast without driving it. What are you using the enterprise ChatGPT license for? What product are you using that you believe Apple should be offering?
But you can't assess the difference between an EV and a combustion engine without ever driving the eV. It's a qualitatively different experience, and using ChatGPT is a qualitatively different thing than what Apple Intelligence is today. Actually, it's more like the difference between a go cart (Apple intelligence) and a Tesla Model S. If all you've done is drive go carts, you have zero clue what a Model S is like.
I can ask the o3 model to write an R Shiny app (what I'm doing right now) with so-and-so features and it does it. I can then iterate productively to refine the app. I can ask it why it did things and explain to me how various aspects of the code work, so that I learn more (I've used R forever but I'm new to Shiny). This effectively replaces a research assistant or programmer for me. It's a huge productivity boost.
For another example -- earlier today I asked ChatGPT whether there's a connection between conducting a fixed effects meta-analysis using weights to account for error covariance and conducting a principal components analysis. It explained the connection and then, based on remembering an earlier conversation, suggested how this connection applied to some other work I was doing. If I asked Siri anything like that the answer would be "here's what I found on the web"
So, you want Apple Intelligence to be a totally different product? I get what you're saying but it's also kind of like asking why your Xbox can't double as a submersible. They're clearly different products with different goals. Apple Intelligence isn't a chatbot nor is it a vibe coding platform.
I'm glad you get those uses from ChatGPT, but that doesn't have any bearing on what Apple Intelligence can or can't do. (Between the two, I'd take the go cart, tbh)
It's not that I"m saying ChatGPT is bad or people that use it are bad. Let's take our opinion of AI and the ethical conundrums out of the equation entirely. Apple isn't building ChatGPT, why should it? Even when Siri is backed by an LLM, it won't be ChatGPT.
That's the problem here. People are comparing apples and oranges, literally. They're two different things.
Also, let's not so easily dismiss the use cases presented by each. How many people need to vibe code? How many are doing research? (however flawed research with an AI might be) Now compare that to how many people have iPhones capable of running Apple Intelligence that need to transform text, edit photos, or triage notifications.
It's not that ChatGPT isn't useful, it's clearly being used by millions, but what do users need? Apple may work towards something like a chatbot in the future, or offer third-party ones via Private Cloud Compute, but that isn't their goal today. Right now, Apple's clearly stated goals is to develop artificial intelligence that works privately to serve users in a way that isn't intrusive, and it's doing that.
What you're asking for is completely antithetical to Apple's goals. And the sooner nerds and pundits realize that, the happier they will be. Because if you go to McDonalds and order steak, you're going to get laughed out of the room. In the end, Apple will be the true powerhouse in AI because it's actually taking a human approach to its product instead of trying to convince everyone of a delusion of grandeur.
What I’m asking for is that Apple make a good AI product (or products). I’m not saying they have to make another chatbot (though they could), I’m only using successful chatbot products as an example of what an AI product is and why it’s useful.
Apple Intelligence is not currently a product. It’s a bundle of technologies. Those technologies could be incorporated into a successful product, but so far that hasn’t happened.
In many ways, Apple has become more of a technology company than a product company. I’m certainly pro technology, and Apple has some great technology. But making great products is also important. Apple doesn’t have an AI product, just AI technologies that are integrated into existing products. That’s fine and good, but it’s not enough.
Comments
AI is a tool, a very powerful one in the hands of a skilled and experienced worker. It's a lousy and possibly dangerous tool for someone inexperienced, foolish, naive, etc. In many ways, AI is no different than a tool like a circular saw, a chainsaw, or a pneumatic drill.
Look at the whole Replit debacle from this past weekend. It happened to some venture capitalist guy who attempted to use the tool to write and deploy an app, i.e., not a professional coder.
Can a 15-year old use a table saw and create something useful? Back when I was in high school, there was a shop class. And yes, it was taught by someone with decades of experience who showed the students how to use the tools safely and effectively.
At some point the governments of this world will start regulating AI with increasing restrictions over time. Do you really believe that septuagenarian career politicians are the best people to be writing these guidelines? Older people really need to start taking some responsibility here and take some steps in educating themselves about AI.
Old people (including me) need to start exploring these tools and understand how they can used effectively as well as understand what their weaknesses are. The technology is evolving at a very rapid rate so just dabbling with one for a few minutes once or twice a year is not enough. But it's okay to try these out on small projects, something that's not going to cost you your life, your career, your family/friends, your bank account, etc.
One thing is pretty much guaranteed: some of these AI tools will get better, some of them will get worse.
We already have dullards recommending certain AI tools because they "sound human". Not the brightest method of selection. That would be like recommending a chainsaw because it has a cool stripe on the housing.
I do not subscribe to the idea that AI will take over or become sentient. It's going to make humans more efficient at certain things, and render some jobs redundant. But not because the AI is doing the job, but because it'll take less humans to do the same work. The writer worried about losing his job to AI shouldn't be, because even if you write with AI, you'll need human intervention to give it soul and reason -- which AI will never have.
That's why it's so funny to me that people see Apple as so behind. It's laying the groundwork for the future of a cooperative AI ecosystem built on Apple platforms with Apple's rules and values, and because it isn't complete this second, it somehow means they're lost in the woods. As with nearly every Apple endeavor in the past 30 years, I wouldn't bet against them.
I use AI every single day as a tool. The biggest challenge for me has little to do with AI or Apple Intelligence itself, it has more to do with how do I learn how to use the AI that is available to me most effectively for the things that I do. This is all still a steep learning curve to climb if you want to get any meaningful value from it. It's also evolving very rapidly and the signal to noise ratio will remain relatively high for a while. We simply don't know what the end state will be at this time.
To be clear, I'm not giving Apple a do-over or Mulligan here. Apple is staying on track and is still very intentionally executing on the plans they put in place years ago. The biggest problem with Apple Intelligence isn't Apple, it's us. When we stay locked in our entrenched pattern of treating everything in life as a zero sum game we are too quick to jump to conclusions based on misunderstandings, assumptions, and things we simply don't understand, or even try to understand.
Accurately recognizing that they are behind is not the same thing as betting against them. I also would not bet against them. But I can open my eyes and see that for the moment, they are absolutely behind in this market with respect to actual products that are useful to people and worth paying for.
"Sam Altman needs 100 million AI GPUs worth $3 trillion for his vision — after OpenAI was forced to do "unnatural things"
https://www.windowscentral.com/artificial-intelligence/openai-chatgpt/sam-altman-needs-100-million-ai-gpus
I can ask the o3 model to write an R Shiny app (what I'm doing right now) with so-and-so features and it does it. I can then iterate productively to refine the app. I can ask it why it did things and explain to me how various aspects of the code work, so that I learn more (I've used R forever but I'm new to Shiny). This effectively replaces a research assistant or programmer for me. It's a huge productivity boost.
For another example -- earlier today I asked ChatGPT whether there's a connection between conducting a fixed effects meta-analysis using weights to account for error covariance and conducting a principal components analysis. It explained the connection and then, based on remembering an earlier conversation, suggested how this connection applied to some other work I was doing. If I asked Siri anything like that the answer would be "here's what I found on the web"
I'm glad you get those uses from ChatGPT, but that doesn't have any bearing on what Apple Intelligence can or can't do. (Between the two, I'd take the go cart, tbh)
It's not that I"m saying ChatGPT is bad or people that use it are bad. Let's take our opinion of AI and the ethical conundrums out of the equation entirely. Apple isn't building ChatGPT, why should it? Even when Siri is backed by an LLM, it won't be ChatGPT.
What you're asking for is completely antithetical to Apple's goals. And the sooner nerds and pundits realize that, the happier they will be. Because if you go to McDonalds and order steak, you're going to get laughed out of the room. In the end, Apple will be the true powerhouse in AI because it's actually taking a human approach to its product instead of trying to convince everyone of a delusion of grandeur.
Apple is not a new entrant. Apple has well over a billion users who trust Apple, a lot. Parents hand their kids iPads with all sorts of kids games trusting that this is OK. If an iPad with AI just once started showing children something inappropriate that would be all over the news.
On the other hand, Apple is famous and has a number of successes to point to so people expect a lot of them.
The next version of macOS does contain a chatbot, sort of. Gary at MacMost posted a video showing how to use Shortcuts to make a chatbot that queried either the completely on-device AI, Apple’s own AppleAI on Apple servers, or ChatGPT. Apparently, macOS ships with ~4GB of data needed for the on-device AI to call on.