AppleZulu

It feels like we're working with a triple negative, here. Apple doesn't tip off internal or third-party retailers of new hardware releases, and Apple sent out a message that doesn't tip off retailers of new hardware releases, therefore "Tim Cook is still more likely to come on stage empty handed at WWDC."

Wouldn't it be more correct to just say that the message reveals nothing either way?

Logically, the only potential new hardware that's been discussed recently that would be likely to be announced at WWDC is the rumored home hub device. If Apple is going to introduce HomeOS and/or much in the way of new home-device features or support, it would be hard to talk all the way around a looming new HomeOS or home hub without actually mentioning either one. Since they've already mentioned that AI-powered Siri is supposed to be coming, it would also be pretty hard for them to totally bypass that subject, even if the full feature set has been delayed. Then of course, if there is a HomeOS along with the potential for native HomeOS applications, the whole point of WWDC is to provide the info and tools for developers to get started at coding those apps.

Now, none of that has anything to do with the non-announcement announcement to retailers, because it was a non-announcement, right? 

MassiveAttack said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Bottom line: unless AI programs are only using public domain material and/or material with the appropriate rights permissions secured then it's nothing more than theft. The LLMs themselves have no value whatsoever without the database used for training. It's basically a gigantic torrent with some techno jargon slathered on top as a smokescreen. 

Does Apple have this database used for training? (Serious question).

Undoubtedly they do. 

Here's the thing. Current LLM AI appears to be combining two relatively recent technological developments to essentially do what Eliza did a half century ago. Computational speed combined with teraflops of data is used to brute-force probabilistic mimicry of human language and thought. What's got everyone fooled is the fact that the mimicry is pretty good. What comes out of that process is something that looks something a human thought and said or wrote. There is, however, no thought. It's an illusion. It is a much larger database doing Eliza's trick of coyly responding with "How does [regurgitate user input] make you feel?"

The tell of course is the fact that, despite the use of all the internet's data and massive computational power, these things still produce output that includes "hallucinations" that an average human with nominal subject-manner knowledge can spot.

nubus said:

MisterKit said:

Not to worry. Open market app stores can't wait to host the fraudsters.

First DOGE those that could deal with fraudsters and then demand a monopoly due to the world being scary? Crony capitalism. It will help Apple until Apple has been standing still for too long.

Go to any DMV "service location" to bask in the experience of no free markets. Visit any USPS office to enjoy the short queues and customer focused products delivered (or not). Having no competition is great if you're too lazy to compete. I say we're ready for a Family Store for apps, an American Apps store, and even The Sleazy Store.

The DMV has to serve every person who wants a driver’s license, from the conscientiously prepared to the idiot who shows up reeking of weed. You want better, faster service and shorter lines? Quit voting for politicians who promise lower taxes and fewer government employees. 

In a nutshell, this explains why Apple is “behind” with AI, but actually isn’t. 

It’s remarkable the consistency with which this pattern repeats, yet even people who consider themselves Apple enthusiasts don’t see it. Tech competitors “race ahead” with an iteration of some technology, while Apple seemingly languishes. Apple is doomed. Then Apple comes out “late” with their version of it, and the initial peanut gallery reception pronounces it too little, too late.

Then within a couple of years, Apple’s version is the gold standard and the others -those cutting-edge innovators- race to catch up, because “first” is often also “half-baked.”

In the news this week, it was exposed that RFK Jr’s “Make America Healthy Again” report was evidently an AI-produced document, replete with hallucinations, most notably in the bibliography, and of course it was. This is what happens when the current cohort of AI models are uncritically used to produce a desired result, without any understanding of how profoundly bad these AI models are. When I read about this in the news, I decided to experiment with it myself. Using MS Copilot -in commercial release as part of MS Word- I picked a subject and asked for a report taking a specific, dubious position on it, with citations and a bibliography. After it dutifully produced the report, I started checking the bibliography, and one after another, failed to find the research papers that Copilot used to back the position taken. I didn’t check all the references, so it’s possible some citations were real, but finding several that weren’t was sufficient to bin the whole thing. It’s bad enough when humans intentionally produce false and misleading information, but when a stock office product will do it for you with no disclaimers or warnings, should that product really be on the market? I also once asked ChatGPT to write a story about green eggs and ham, in the style of Dr. Seuss. It then plaigerized the actual Seuss story, almost verbatim, in a clear abuse of copyright law. This is the stuff that Apple is supposedly trailing behind.

So the report here that Apple is developing AI but, unlike their “cutting edge” competitors, not releasing something that produces unreliable garbage, suggests that no, they’re not behind. They’re just repeating the same pattern again of carefully producing something of high quality and reliability, and in a form that is intuitively useful, rather than a gimmicky demonstration that they can do a thing, whether it’s useful or not. Eventually they’ll release something that consistently produces reliable information, and likely does so while respecting copyright and other intellectual property rights. The test will be that not only will it be unlikely to hallucinate in ways that mislead or embarrass its honest users, it will actually disappoint those with more nefarious intent. When asked to produce a report with dubious or false conclusions, it won’t comply like a sociopathic sycophant. It will respond by telling the user that the reliable data not only doesn’t support the requested position, but actually refutes it. Hopefully this will be a feature that Apple uses to market their AI when it’s released.

mikethemartian said:

Apparently an appeals court has lifted the first court block in tariffs but a second court has also placed a new block.

Hey, great. More instability. Just what every American business needs to thrive. This administration's Big Plan is really working!




Wait. Did I say "business?" I meant to say "short seller" and "inside trader."