mayfly

About

Username
mayfly
Joined
Visits
4
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,100
Badges
1
Posts
385

Reactions

570Like86Informative

  • How Apple is already using machine learning and AI in iOS

    mayflymayfly

    The forefront of public perception regarding AI in 2023 is occupied by Microsoft's AI-powered Bing and Google's Bard.

    My experience is that ChatGPT is recognised and mentioned much more widely than these two.

    The hype about AI is overblown. When I first learned about decision trees (make a list of possible outcomes, assign them a probability and a cost, then calculate to find the "best" option) I was taught that the trick is to get the estimated probability as accurate as possible - that with experience your estimates will get more accurate. The current buzz is happening because people have figured out a way to analyse huge amounts of data and build a bunch of probability lookup tables in a short enough period of time to be feasible and at a low enough cost to be justifiable.

    At the end of the day, it's all just computation. The algorithms are not too complicated but the steps are computationally intensive and to understand how it works you need to be comfortable with matrix multiplication and statistics (e.g. this YouTube Video). The thing I really struggle to wrap my head around is why the machine doesn't have to show how it arrived at an answer - all of my teachers were very particular about that part of the process.
    The hype may be overblown, but you have to examine the underlying reason for that hype. It's not based on what we call artificial intelligence today. It's based on projections of the possibilities and consequences if a true artificial intelligence emerges. That would be a recursive software system that could change its own programming in order to improve itself. That would mean the program has a will of its own, and the means to impose that will. That's what the hype is about. And the implications are both inspiring and deeply concerning. Sure, guardrails can be put into place. But requires the builders of those guardrails to think of literally every possible scenario. You don't just have to be right most of the time. One oversight, just one, in such a recursive model, leaves it open to possibilities we can't even imagine.

    The great futurist Isaac Asimov proposed the famous "Three Laws of Robotics," and countless writers and movie makers have demonstrated how ineffective those guardrails can be against an advanced artificial intelligence.
    watto_cobraalexsaunders790

  • Apple will frame iPhone 15 USB-C switch as a consumer win

    mayflymayfly
    It would have happened sooner or later, even without EU pressure.
    Alex1Njibwatto_cobra

  • How Apple is already using machine learning and AI in iOS

    mayflymayfly
    slow n easy said:
    I’m wondering if the Apple Car will have a similar fate as the Apple Television Set. It’s hard for me to see how they can innovate on building cars. We already have EV and self-driving, and we already have big digital displays. Cars have been innovating like crazy in the last few years. Instead of building the actual vehicles, Apple should license the software instead. Like CarPlay, but much more advanced. I can’t imagine buying a car built by Foxconn.
    Getting into the automaker business is the worst thing Apple could do. Think of how many American carmakers there were in say, 1930: more than 50. Now there are basically 3, if you include Tesla, but not the boutique makers (Fiat Chrysler/Stellantis is no longer an American carmaker). And many of those companies were GREAT automakers. Think Auburn, Cord, Duesenberg, Packard, Studebaker, Hudson, American Motors, Kaiser, DeLorean, Checker and many others.

    These companies were all founded by people with extensive experience in the segment prior to startup, and still failed. It's my belief that Apple would suffer the same fate if they "diWORSEified" into automaking. It could be significantly detrimental to the entire company if they don't cut their losses, from the enormous startup costs to the overhead and payroll costs. Better would be to license Apple's proprietary technologies to existing automakers, and charge them up the wazoo for it!
    Alex1Nwatto_cobraalexsaunders790

  • Apps by Apple promotes first-party apps already on iPhone and Mac

    mayflymayfly
    Sounds like a great idea for risk-averse iPhone users like myself.
    watto_cobra

  • Apple Watch saves distracted driver's life with Crash Detection

    mayflymayfly
    This is the very definition of irony!
    A single vehicle crash caused by distracted driving.
    That likely means that the driver was texting on her Apple iPhone, which caused her to miss a turn or something, so she goes off the road and rolls at least once. Now the Apple Watch notes the crash, and tells the iPhone that caused the crash to call 911.

    Using technology to mitigate the disaster caused by the technology. My brain is about to explode!
    baconstang