gatorguy

Blackwhitepanda said:

Right move. What Prosser did, was not a rumor. It was stealing secrets. 

According to Prosser's text string, Apple's claims are inaccurate https://x.com/jon_prosser/status/1946058379085943243

whitehusky said:

chasm said:

Thanks for this eye-opening article. This is a lot more information than I would have guessed smart TVs collect. We watch, but we are truly being watched as well.

One alternative way to minimize this issue is to use the Apple TV hardware device rather than your smart TV's interface, which is usually ad-cluttered and poorly-designed anyway. The Apple TV's interface is far more pleasing and doesn't offer any direct ads, though it does show images and previews of shows for various services (including Apple TV+) at the top. This can be

I don't have one of the brands profiled above, but it's likely that some degree of what's detailed in the article is probably happening with most other brands, or soon will be.

If you don't have an Apple TV box, get one. If you can't get one for some reason, disconnect your smart TV from the internet after first checking for a firmware update and allowing that if one is available. Most cable companies now offer services like Disney+ and Netflix (et al) through your cable service rather than you having to subscribe directly, and in some cases that works out cheaper (and consolidates those services into one bill).

You can reconnect the TV to an internet connection on an annual basis to check for firmware updates, but I'd suggest leaving the TV "dumb" as much as possible for your situation.

This is what we do - the TV is not connected to the internet/wifi, and we watch literally everything through all Apple TV box. Maybe one a year or so I'll look online to see if there's a firmware update and update it manually. I just want the TV to be a dumb monitor and Apple TV to be the box I watch everything from.

If eliminating all viewership data sharing is your goal, be sure to disable all data collection gathered via AppleTV as well.  

sunman42 said:

22july2013 said:

If everyone who writes a comment on this page will send a fee to Dr Seuss for learning from his books to read and speak, then I will pay attention to their views if they oppose AI learning from published sources. But if you aren't willing to pay everyone that you learn from, for every word that comes out of your mouth, then I don't see why AI should have to pay either. Next, are we going to charge aliens for learning English by reading the radio waves that are being sent into deep space?

That’s the point, though: libraries, schools, or whatever grownup bought that book that helped you learn to read paid Dr. Seuss’s publisher, who paid him and his agent. And school teachers, under the fair use clause, could make copies of excerpts of those books to help in reading lessons. Where does any AI outfit other than Apple pay for anything the engines are scraping?

But you’re on the right track on one thing: we should definitely start beaming Dr. Seuss books to the stars.

Google pays for some training data, signing licensing deals, as does OpenAI.

The author may, unintentionally or not, be conflating terms. Just as all horses have a relationship to the category of animal, adaptive AI has a relationship to machine learning. As with horses, the opposite is NOT true. All animals are not horses, and old machine learning operations are not the same as adaptive AI, or even AI as a whole for that matter. Apple hopes to correct that by leaning into it for upcoming chip designs.

While Apple has used machine learning-based software, which is unable to adapt to unexpected outcomes, it hasn't yet used the idea of a system that can continuously learn and improve its chip design autonomously, aka Adaptive AI, for the task.  

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

StrangeDays said:

9secondkox2 said:

Business-wise, makes sense for the family organization to do this. Capitalize on popularity and make some money. 

No, it doesn’t make sense, because that’s unethical and wrong. It’s why we ask presidents to divest prior to coming into office. It only makes sense if one is void of ethics and doesn’t mind doing wrong. 

Is the president involved? I thought his family took it over in 2017. Or is the family not allowed to make a marketing connection to the fact that their father was and is the President? Donald Trump Jr. is not Donald Trump Sr. 

You thought wrong. Yes, the president is involved. He is enriching himself while in office, profiting from the very same industries which he affects with tariffs, executive orders and social media posts. He is doing crypto currency deals with foreign countries while making state visits. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/05/06/trump-organization-admits-president-still-controls-his-business-in-new-filing/

So we are using British rules now?

No, common-sense. If it walks like a duck....