auxio

mattinoz said:

BittySon said:

Why anyone would install software from a man with the maturity level of tadpole is beyond me.

Given the number of successful products from men with the maturity level of a tadpole. Email systems seems one of the low potential harm products 

Giving said tadpole access to your calendar and all of your email is low potential harm?

tech_traveller said:

auxio said:

As a friend recently put it so succinctly, "The current trend in AI has convinced people that garbage is gold. But then social media has been doing that for over a decade now, so it's not surprising."

Maybe I'm old school, but I've always looked for genuine solutions to problems, not approximations with a lot of hand waving. Which is where I feel AI is currently. But obviously that doesn't stop investors looking to ride the wave of interest.

AI is not a new concept, we have been expecting this technology for a long time.

Where did I say it was new? I was studying AI a couple of decades ago in college, and even then it had a long history.

AppleZulu said:

Because generative AI isn't almost human, it is not capable of being creative or original. As a result, the current batch of programs that are "trained" on other people's copyrighted work are incapable of doing anything more than regurgitating that work wholesale or in piecework mash-ups. Using the same legal definitions for humans who do that, it's plagiarism. Cutting and pasting other people's work into something and calling it your own is plagiarism. Doing so for money is called theft. Convincing investors and customers that this stolen product is gold really is selling garbage, and the pending lawsuits over that theft will soon enough eliminate the claimed value of the stuff. 

Exactly this. We're simply watching the knowledge and art we've generated being reflected back at us, often in ways which lose the original meaning or human expression. Which, in turn, is having the effect where I feel like we're actually losing the capability to discern fact from fiction and the ability to comprehend genuine human emotion. But money doesn't care about that, as long as there's growth.

As a friend recently put it so succinctly, "The current trend in AI has convinced people that garbage is gold. But then social media has been doing that for over a decade now, so it's not surprising."

Maybe I'm old school, but I've always looked for genuine solutions to problems, not approximations with a lot of hand waving. Which is where I feel AI is currently. But obviously that doesn't stop investors looking to ride the wave of interest.

22july2013 said:

Just one week ago, the New York Times launched a lawsuit against Microsoft over its AI's training which "reads" New York Times copyrighted materials in order to "train" its AI. If Apple uses copyrighted materials in its training, then Apple would also become the target of lawsuits.

Traditional news organizations have finally clued into the fact that they no longer control the access points to the content they pay for the creation of and post online. That, combined with the internet ethos of "free information", has created quite a problem. The people who control the information access points (and profit from them) like social media companies and more recently, AI companies, are happy to exploit people's desire for free stuff and avoid paying news organizations anything for that information (which also happens to maximize their profits).

I'd hope Apple takes the high road on this and negotiates fair deals for the copyrighted material they use for training (similar to Apple News), but obviously if your competitors are able to undercut you by taking the low road, it makes that far more difficult. And yes, there's also the problem of countries which simply have no concept of copyrighted material in their legal system.

ddawson100 said:

Never expected this but here in 2023 I’m rooting for the giant multi-national corporation over the government. Go, Apple and down with Pegasus and oppressive government.

Agreed. No large organization (government or corporation) should get "carte blanche" based on ideology. It's all about the leadership and what direction they're taking things. Modi's leadership is one of an unfortunate string of populist strong-arm dictators who have been elected recently. But as I always say, at least in a democratic society (which Modi is working hard to change), people have a say in things. And India has a history of standing up to repressive governments (not coincidentally, Modi's government has targeted Gandhi's legacy). Good for Apple for being on the side of those who hold government to account (investigative journalism), often at risk to their own freedom.