mpantone

Consumer use of AI chatbots and AI assistants is real otherwise no one would be downloading and using ChatGPT. There's something of a generational gap for usage. Zoomers are using AI heavily for school (and their teachers are quite aware of it and are using their own AI tools to detect AI usage). Boomers, Generation X, and early Millennials use AI tools far less frequently.

AI saves time for many tasks. It doesn't make anyone smarter, it just makes them more efficient. What someone does with their newly gained free time is something else. If you use it to read and learn new topics, yes, you can get smarter. If you just sink your extra free time just watching TikToks, well, I don't know about.

Having AI write your work e-mails doesn't make you understand your business any better. Nor does it help improve your language and communication skills. It might smooth things over with your colleagues but it won't help you come up with bright ideas on how to better the place you work.

Anyhow, yes, all of these companies are fighting over a limited pool of talent. Some top level AI engineer working on a model at Meta isn't helping Apple get their model improved. Yes, hiring the best people does matter which why these people are being paid more than minimum wage or even many other people in the same company.

It's also important to reiterate that consumer AI business is actually turning a profit right now. Everyone is running at a loss right now, including OpenAI (operators of ChatGPT, the most popular consumer AI service). All of these companies are trying to set a foundational framework for future success and profit. It's a marathon not a sprint and Apple's mission of protecting user privacy is always going to put them at a disadvantage compared to their competitors who make the lion's share of their profits by selling user activity data (Alphabet, Meta).

Apple's senior management knows how bad Siri is. Even the "improved" Siri they were developing wasn't good enough so it was postponed to some future release date. Apple's years of neglect of Siri is now utterly and completely crystal clear.

anthogag said:

I am glad Apple is suing Prosser. Shut him up. 

What will sites like Macrumors do if loser leakers like Prosser are finally muzzled. They may go dark. 

ALL Apple news sites including AppleInsider -- not just MacRumors -- rely in part on publishing rumors. There's not enough Apple news volume to sustain a site if they just publish actual facts or discussed released hardware and software. If AppleInsider stopped publishing rumors my guess is that site traffic would fall off by three quarters.

Hell, this site posted a security warning about customer data privacy breaches at Qantas which had ZERO to do with Apple, iPhone, Mac, or anything tied to Apple. This site has repeatedly posted articles about security breaches that are written as though the problems are specific to Apple users even when they are NOT.

Note that the more absurd and farcical rumors seem to get more pageviews and reader engagement. There's a balance between publishing what everyone else is publishing and losing any modicum of journalistic integrity. That's why I have repeatedly suggested that AppleInsider and other news sites use a quantitative rumor scoring system like the StarMine system used for financial ANALysts. People who make money from predictions should be graded on their track record.

For many years this site used to slavishly report anything that ANALyst Gene Munster (often referring to him as "legendary analyst Gene Munster") used to spew until it became an SNL parody of itself.

News sites walk on a very narrow tightrope of driving pageviews and risking credibility.

Note that Prosser got the rumor right. He is accused of getting his information illegally. That's different than just making wild-arsed guesses and regurgitating it on the Internet. But for some of these rumor mongers, they don't have good inside sources so they just fabricate their "content".

AppleInsider is not immune from the same rumor-related factors that influence MacRumors, 9to5Mac, The Mac Observer, CNET, whatever.

These rumors have gotten far more ludicrous over the past ten years with a big drop in believability after the pandemic. And not just Apple rumors, pretty much any sort of rumor. We've seen countless silly rumors about upcoming products, the whole Apple Car thing, the just-won't-die Apple Television Set thing.

There are rumors about Jonny Ives's device, iPhone cases, folding phones, the "HomeHub panel", HomeHubs with robotic arms. A lot of this has veered into satire, like an SNL parody of rumors.

And the people who agree with many of the most ridiculous rumors go out of their way to concoct absurd scenarios to back up the rumor.

A lot of this can be blamed on today's social media analytics methodology and monetization policies. It's worth spewing farcical nonsense because you make money, even if what you are spouting is twaddle. These rumors were far more reliable 15-20 years ago before smartphones became ubiquitous. Smartphones democratized the Internet but online content quality didn't get any better. Smartphones gave everyone a voice and with today's monetization schemes, shouting out preposterous nonsense is more profitable than carefully written, thoughtfully considered analyses.

It's a shame that legitimate media sites have to regurgitate this nonsense, even go into in-depth analyses about some of these "reports."

And remember that these finance industry professionals have been long referred to as ANALysts for a reason. It's not just the knuckle dragging vloggers and tweeters who are at fault here.

Rumor mongers don't have any qualms or embarrassment about circulating garbage. Even if what they are saying is worthless, they are still making money and if someone points out their mistakes, the online world quickly moves on to the next Rumor Of The Day. These online rumors (and social media in general) are really like digital junk food in 2025.

Meta's grand Metaverse vision is the failure. Their actual shipping VR hardware is acceptable and competitive.

I have an Oculus Rift S and it fulfills most of its 6+ year old limited usage cases at close to 1/8th the price of the AVR (not adjusted for inflation).

AVP has a clearly better display and refresh rate but those aren't not the sole metrics. My geriatric Rift S is WAY lighter and that's super important for VR HMDs, even if it's an ugly piece of Lenovo-manufactured plastic-wrapped crap.

The AVP is both too expensive and too heavy to be of much interest to Joe Consumer. This has been the ongoing problem for VR HMDs for the past 30+ years and Apple is continuing this dreadful narrative.

Stop sugarcoating Apple and their overpriced AVP. It is not worth its price which is why Apple quickly scaled back production.

And this discussion isn't limited to fancy VR hardware. Google Cardboard is pretty much dead because no one want to wear their smartphones on their heads, even if the mounting hardware is nearly free.

Stop thinking of VR as the Next Big Thing because it's not. Hell, wireless earbuds took over the world because Joe Consumer hates the bulk of headphones. VR HMDs have their place in some commercial, enterprise, and scientific workloads. The user experience sucks for 95% of Joe Consumer's waking hours.

And I'll point out right here that this tangent was brought to us by an AppleInsider staffer. This is supposed to be a thread about AI researchers and their salaries which is what I covered in my first response (reply #2).

At least stick with the bloody topic if you are going to hold forum participants to that same criterium.

Zuck is a nimrod.

This hiring strategy isn't sustainable. He's going to shell out a billion for five similar hires? That's crazy.

And ultimately it's bad for employee morale at Meta. Think of all of the people there. They will look at their own compensation packages and say, "Hey, what am I? Chopped liver?" Even if they wouldn't be offered $200M, many will probably think about sending out discreet feelers to see what others would offer for their services. And who wants to be this new hire's admin/executive assistant? "Gee, he's pulling in $200M and I'm getting $80K and drive a Honda Accord."

Now Zuck has one really rich albeit skilled employee and created quiet resentment amongst many.

The hiring escalation cannot continue forever. At some point, someone is going to say, "your position is eliminated" to one of these high-earning AI scientists. That person will be replaced by someone making $500K and a bunch of Nvidia AI clusters (the latter who will work 24x7 and don't get sick or take vacations).

Good on Pang for seizing the opportunity. Take Zuck's stupid money and invest it elsewhere.