Wesley_Hilliard

prof said:

You're so horribly misguided in your smear piece but one question that keeps on popping up in my head: Why the frog do you even give a shit? Cui bono? As you've said so eloquently yourself: We Europeans have not requested your opinion and are even less looking for you to be our saviour. If Apple decides that the European market is not relevant enough to comply with the DMA; fair game to not serve it or less well then. I'm thinking hard of desirable features which are missing, I can truly live without the (botched!) Apple AI and US people do envy us for the ability to have third party app stores already... If you want to moan and bitch about bonkus laws, try the UK for the back door requirements or the US for their spy laws... oh wait, supposedly doesn't bother you due to being a US citizen: frog the f off!

I really don't want third party app stores, alternative smart watches, or different ways to pay for software. I'm quite content in the Apple ecosystem and chose it because of being locked down.

elijahg said:

gavinthain said:

Bingo_Wings said:

This is starting to look like Copland part deux from the late 90s. Steve Jobs and NextStep saved Apple then. Who will ride to the rescue this time?

What exactly needs outside Support to rescue this? This is a software company saying, we're sorry but we need a bit more time.

They've had 12 years since Siri's debut, but clearly they have done nothing at all to improve Siri in that time. So now trying to reverse that neglect and cram sky-high improvements into < 1 year has turned out to be impossible. Robby Walker is clearly responsible for this lack of improvement - he came over from the Cue acquisition back in 2013 - and seems to have sat on his hands ever since. He needs to be moved on.

 The only reason bad Siri has been fairly accepted by the world is because barely anyone uses it - Maps was a huge disaster as it's such a well-used app. But Apple got on that and totally fixed it within a couple of years. Siri has been a joke for an embarrassingly long time. And it is a joke - people defending it here saying they don't have a problem because they only ask it a couple of different, limited and specific queries are totally missing the point about a "personal assistant".

Can't really take a comment seriously when they say something like "they have done nothing" in 12 years, "barely anyone uses it." Give me a break. Siri is one of the most used assistants on the planet simply because of the number of Apple products. It might be the butt of jokes, but that's because of the same problem we've seen with AI companies over promising and under delivering. All the modern assistants are jokes because companies like Amazon and Google promised that they would change the world with a talking computer from the Jetsons. What we got was a reminders machine that can play music and turn the lights on.

Stick to what Siri can do and it works fine.

It needs work, sure. It's not perfect. None of them are. But this world view is out of touch with reality. What exactly do you want Siri to do that it doesn't do today? File your taxes?

I'm exhausted by over exaggerating drama queen nerds. Siri not working the way you want sometimes is at worst a mild inconvenience.

gatorguy said:

https://www.macworld.com/article/2631729/apple-intelligence-was-both-too-early-and-too-late.html

Nah. I'll counter with AI is a bad name for a decent technology that won't change the world, but will help make certain workflows better. Apple is best positioned to win the AI race while all of its competitors are promising impossible scenarios that involve the end of the world, destruction of the economy, or sentience.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/03/11/everyone-is-a-loser-in-the-apple-intelligence-race

Marvin said:

tht said:

Still confused on how AI or AGI is going to benefit us.

Like, these AI companies are offering a service for subscription money. That type of business model will limit revenue and seems doubtful they can make money that way? It ultimately will be powered by ads. So the race is really to be in the position that Google is in right now? Ads, ads, ads?

The race is to build the software and hardware to replace humans in factories? Humans are probably cheaper. The race to replace desk and service workers? Desk work has been whittled down so much. So, it’s just the continuing trend. Humans are probably cheaper? Service workers? Humans are probably cheaper. 

Perhaps it will allow an auteur to make a movie with a million budget look like a movie with a billion dollar budget? Sounds like that would make the movie business be like YouTube? Time wasters. But the ads!

I think my position has settled on Butlerian jihad. It’s really just a normal resistance to robber barons, but Butlerian Jihad sounds apropos. 

Companies are using it to replace some jobs. Duolingo replaced some contractors with AI being used for translations:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/09/tech/duolingo-layoffs-due-to-ai/index.html

Klarna replaced customer service staff with AI:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/klarna-ceo-ai-chatbot-replacing-workers-sebastian-siemiatkowski/

Employees are expensive:
100 employees x $50,000 = $5m/year
100 x M3 Ultra ($4k) = $400k over multiple years

The code-generating AI is very useful and boosts productivity:

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2024/10/google-ceo-says-over-25-of-new-google-code-is-generated-by-ai/

It's like having a user manual on steroids.

For media, it is being used for VFX and audio. The fake celebrity video on the following site was AI generated:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/kanye-west-viral-video-scarlett-johansson-1236134290/

It has been used for de-aging actors:



James Earl Jones who was the voice of Darth Vader died and AI is now being used to replicate his voice. The voice in the Obi-Wan TV show was AI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogNzvIoD2Qo&t=51s

It's most useful and reliable as a tool to help with tasks that are tedious and repetitive. Transcribing audio for subtitles for example.

People are not aware just now of the impact AGI will have because AI doesn't seem reliable enough to replace a human. It doesn't have to though, it only has to replace a job role and it can replace a significant amount of job roles that make up a huge segment of the economy. This will mainly benefit corporations at the expense of lower skilled jobs but it can also empower individuals to compete with companies. Game studios hire thousands of people. When an AI can replace a lot of the job roles, an individual will be able to spool up a digital army of workers and be able to manage a virtual game studio. This will allow individuals to make millions or even billions in revenue where they never could before. It will also create a flood of mediocre content way bigger than we see already.

I'm not buying it. Sure, innovations in technology inevitably leads to old jobs being replaced with technology. Assembly lines, sewing machines, etc. Old ways die out to make way for the new. AI tools have the ability to increase productivity in a way that might mean hiring fewer people for a specific role, or instead of needing someone to transcribe audio manually, you have a computer do it for you.

I have no doubt that there has already been an impact to some job sectors. It's what happens when new technology comes into the mainstream. The problem is that the AI grifters are trying to convince people that they can replace people with AI when they actually can't.

I'm not sure how those companies are doing with their replacements or staff reductions, but that'll pan out in time. Many of the mid to small range businesses that have attempted to replace people with AI go out of business. Large companies can afford to experiment.

AI is a good tool. There will be some jobs lost because of it, but some jobs created because of it too. But it is in no way the existential crisis that OpenAI wants people to believe.

This so-called AGI is just more nonsense packaged in a way that means OpenAI can charge more money for whatever mediocre model the release under that guise. I can't comment on something that doesn't exist yet, so let's see how AGI goes if it ever really happens.

I have a feeling we're already way past peak AI and all that's left for the current iteration is refinement. No, that doesn't mean a new more capable model won't be out next week, what I mean is we've seen the peak of what it can do and it's just going to get better at those tasks. Like these examples, better movie deepfakes, better translation skills, better scientific research and data parsing.

I doubt we'll see something significantly different emerge beyond the AI slop images, video, and text. And we most definitely are not on the way to a sentient computer.

DAalseth said:

Two thoughts:
First, I have four novels, hundreds of short stories, plus paintings, drawings, and a full 50 episode podcast series. They are all setting on my system and not on the web. Starting over a year ago I started pulling anything and everything that I cared about off the web simply because I will not let the thieves steal and profit from my work. It is going to stay there until some kind of protections for copyright are in place. 

Second, I don’t understand what you are trying to say with the Gulf of Mexico image. It IS the Gulf of Mexico regardless of what the moron in chief says. 

It's a joke. I agree, it is the Gulf of Mexico, but OpenAI wants to become best friends with this administration, so they've got some quality control to take care of. Where's the outrage from Republican reps over this heinous crime against the administration's almighty power?