They also end it with trying to sell their service around AI which further devalues it, and even trying to give it a name like "AppleStorm".
I think some of the points are valid, but I think the over emphasis on Siri vs Private Cloud is massively overblown. That to me is just the nature of a transition like this and eventually more if Siri will likely fall under "Apple Intelligence" since it makes sense that they would have a single platform on the backend.
Then there is this header:
> "End-to-End Encryption? I’m Not Sure"
Well.. it is still end to end encrypted. Nothing about using Siri to dictate it changes that since you know... your on one of the ends. It is like saying that me taking a screenshot of the conversation somehow broke E2E.
That isn't to say that the concern here is not valid, but there are so many examples of things being twisted and manipulated to get you to use their product that I have a hard time really understanding what is an issue and what isn't.
Like ok you made an app using SiriKit using Apple's recommended settings (which may be recommended for a reason). But do you have the ability to have them not go to apple's servers if you configure it a certain way... it seems the author just ended with "Well it happens when I made this app" and never looked further.
"Appears" to me is the key word here, how do you know that what it said was true?
It will very confidently "answer" your question in a way that is convincing but if you actually try to click through you may find that the answer is straight up wrong.
I feel like most of the time that I am looking up something that is not niche but also not a major thing it does this and at best useless at worst actually harmful since people won't click through for the real information.
The biggest problem being that these systems can be right enough times that you gradually start trusting it and stop checking. Which is what google wants, if you have to check its work in the first place why does it even exist.
Edit:
Yesterday I tried using one of these research tools because I was curious and it was low priority so figured why not. I was looking for an open source solution to a problem. I specifically mentioned one that I had seen but I was cautious because it seemed to have been abandoned so was looking for others. It confidently told me how wrong I was about thinking it was abandoned despite the last commit being in early 2024 (it even said 2024 in the report) and even before that was clearly slowing down.
Now thankfully in that case it actually told me in the report the 2024 part which clearly told me how bad the report was going to be, but that is clearly bad and tainted the entire research.
> It will very confidently "answer" your question in a way that is convincing but if you actually try to click through you may find that the answer is straight up wrong.
It's the "it's wrong about the area I'm an expert in, but I feel it's correct in areas I'm not familiar with", but on Google's scale.
you don't really need to be 100% sure of it being truth for a vast majority of cases.
edit for comment below:
Its not about laziness for me. Its the displeasure of wading through junk that internet has become. I just don't have brain capacity or the smarts to outwit the scammers .
I just don't understand being so cynical and lazy that you'll accept a meaningfully higher chance of being misinformed if it saves a few minutes of searching and reading[1]. Nobody is that busy.
[1] If the search takes more than a few minutes then the AI overview is almost guaranteed to be wrong or useless.
> you don't really need to be 100% sure of it being truth for a vast majority of cases.
Except that these tools are being positioned as a source of reliable truth and the companies are incentivized to keep you on their system (google) instead of actually pushing you to the source (unless the source is an ad).
Any disclaimer they try to put is hidden and often lighter/smaller text.
I mean even if that was the intended phrasing that does not really change anything about the reply.
Me latching onto the "appears" does not change anything since even with your interpretation it is wrong 50% of the time and that assumes that the 50% of the time you think it is right you actually know it is right and it is not actually wrong but you never check.
I am very curious realistically how can they reliably fix this.
So my understanding is that this is that the database/index that copilot used already crawled this file so of course it would not need to access the file to be able to tell the information in it.
But then, how do you fix that? Do you then tie audit reports to accessing parts of the database directly? Or are we instructing the LLM to do something like...
"If you are accessing knowledge pinky promise you are going to report it so we can add an audit log"
This really needs some communication from Microsoft on exactly what happened here and how it is being addressed since as of right now this should raise alarm bells for any company using Copilot and people have access to sensitive data that needs to be strictly monitored.
It seems to me that the contents of the file cached in the index has to be dumped into the LLM's context at some point for it to show up in the result, so you can do the audit reports at that point.
I am normally pretty quick to jump on how bad for privacy shoving some random LLM tool into a product is and the serious security risks especially in the terminal...
But looking at the marketing for Warp, this thing screams LLM everything. Nothing about this hints that things are processed locally. I can't imagine using a tool like this and not thinking that everything I type into it (and give it access too) is getting routed to a server somewhere.
What am I missing here about being upset that... it seems to be doing its job?
Unless I am missing that it is installing something so this happens in your normal terminal or something like that... to be blunt if you used this tool and this is what breaks your trust... how did you think it worked in the first place?
It is annoying, I would much rather pay for the content I am consuming since I want to support content being made.
But with prices going up and there now being so many services, I find it hard to justify more than a couple.
I pay for Apple TV+ and Disney+ with zero hesitation since I get a large amount of content from both of those that I actually enjoy. I added Hulu to Disney plus because why not.
Outside of that I just can't bring myself to subscribe to Netflix, whatever HBO is calling themselves now, paramount, etc etc anymore. It added up too quickly and there are alternative solutions.
It isn't even necessarily about the cost anymore; I have spent way too much on the hardware for my media server and I am nowhere near any concept of breaking even. But I no longer need to think about where something may be accessible just to be disappointed that I can't stream it.
Is there a name that these upscaled releases fall under to easily find them?
Star Trek in particular (I was watching voyager yesterday) the quality is always pretty depressing when shown on a larger TV. Been recently thinking about trying to find the best quality I can find but it is always a lot of trial and error. But if there is a common name and tag I could look for that would be great.
How we keep getting articles like this, that LLM's will flat out lie, and yet we keep pushing them and the general public keeps eating it up... is beyond me.
They even "lie" about their actions. My absolute favorite that I still see happen, is you ask one of these models to write a script. Something is wrong, so it says something along the lines of "let me just check the documentation real quick" proceeded by the next words a second later being something like "now I got it"... since you know... it didn't actually check anything but of course the predictive engine wants to "say" that.
From the LLMs perspective, "let me check the docs" is the invocation you say before you come back with an answer, because that almost certainly appears in the corpus many times naturally.
How are there not agents that are "instruct trained" differently. Is this behavior in the fundamental model? From my limited knowledge I'd think it'd be more from those post model training steps, but there are so many people who don't like that I'd figure there be an interface that doesn't talk like that.
While I can understand the side that you are coming from. One of the biggest failures I have seen from my friends is demonizing anyone that may have voted for tump and these people, and refusing to have a conversation. Immediately labeling them as racist for example (which I don't think is necessarily untrue for many of them, but when we know there are black people that voted for Trump that argument as a blanket statement gets harder to make).
I strongly believe that for many people just doing this is causing them to dig into their heels and instead of examining themselves they are pushed to being on the defensive trying to say they are not racist, homophobic, sexist, whatever. Which is not getting us anywhere and is just making both sides angrier.
There are the extremes, people that have the power that are pushing things like this. But then there are the manipulated. Those that are being told lies and being encouraged to vote a certain why because they simply are only seeing part of the picture. Maybe they don't have exposure to the world. Whatever.
While I do respect someone's right to protect their own mental health and not want to engage in a conversation with many of these people, these conversations do need to happen. I truly believe that the majority of people are nowhere near as vile as those in power right now are. So we need to understand why they are enabling them.
That being said...
It is a very fine line. Too much empathy can lead to them thinking that this is ok, there does need to be some force in a push back against what is happening right now. Pushing back on the misinformation that is causing many people to hold these views.
So yes we can try to understand where these views are coming from without giving them weight as being valid.
I can totally understand that they are being manipulated. I still have no interest in trying to de-program them. Cut them off, and let them live with their choices. They'll either figure it out eventually, or they won't.
People who are trying to harm my friends and family don't deserve any of my time and effort.
I completely respect a personal choice of doing that, I mean I don't particularly want to engage with many of them either. Especially not when I can expect that I am going to likely be called a particular F word (I am a gay man).
My biggest issue is not the lack of contact, it is the demonizing. Using blanket terms like "if you voted for trump your racist, homophobic, sexist, etc" when I just simply don't think that is a valid blanket statement and is really just a "feel good" statement for us to justify not hearing why they might have done something.
I do think that we are actively pushing them to be more extreme with blanket statements like this and it isn't not actually helping.
We can keep calling them names all we want but the fact is they are still voters that are enabling what we all have to deal with. Either we acknowledge that or we just keep repeating the same pattern we have been repeating since at least the 70's. A little bit of progress followed by a regression.
It's a prisoner's dilemma, or tragedy of the commons, or whatever-scenario-where-the-best-plan-is-coordinated-action-but-it's-difficult-for-individuals-to-do-so. Yeah a gay man shouldn't have to go to court to defend his marriage, but society's made up of individuals and their actions, and somebody's got to perform that action
They might not deserve it, but they will take rather more of your time and effort if you don't try to exert it until after ICE is breaking down doors and disappearing your friends and family without due process.
I agree. I had this argument here previously, that I supposedly "owe" it to "the other side" to listen to their arguments (in this case on abortion).
No, I don't. Not when the other side just openly uses lies (that they know to be lies) like "post-birth abortion" to argue their cause.
They're not discussing things in even a modicum of good faith. Saying that I have some moral imperative to engage with them as if they are is horseshit.
>No, I don't. Not when the other side just openly uses lies (that they know to be lies) like "post-birth abortion" to argue their cause.
Absolutely. Although I'd point out that in many states that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, those on the "other side" (you know, our fellow Americans), often by large majorities, rejected abortion bans in their states after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
So it's not really as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Yes, there are absolutely those who despise the idea of the agency of women, and there are absolutely those who exploit that for monetary and political gain.
But a majority of Americans don't and even many of those who aren't on board could be persuaded to a live and let live position.
Politics is, after all, "the art of the possible." If we just demonize and "other" anyone who doesn't specifically agree with us, then nothing is possible -- only dysfunction and hate. That's not a world I want to live in.
Authoritarianism, whether Nazism, Soviet Communism, or French Revolutionary Government, is the belief that some group knows best and everyone else should allow them to make decisions, and that furthermore incorrect beliefs should be stamped out. Not engaging with authoritarian beliefs only reinforces the belief that they're correct and everyone else is wrong; after all, from their perspective nobody's ever proved them wrong.
Related to that though is the fact that authoritarianism has slowly become more prevalent over the past few decades, and it's easier than ever for people to get into cliques and echo chambers that never challenge their beliefs. That's resulted in a decrease in skills in truly changing people's minds about things, since in an echo chamber it's easier to just kick out anyone who disagrees, and if you're kicked out it's easier to just create your own echo chamber that espouses your belief than to convince people in the other echo chamber. This naturally leads to authoritarianism where an echo chamber believes that they're right and everyone else's incorrect opinions should be suppressed. When that community pops out of their echo chamber and tries to change everyone else's beliefs, it's only natural for people to respond with the best way they've learned how: refuse to engage.
I absolutely understand the desire not to engage with Nazis. But, ignoring Nazis is definitionally not going to do anything to fix the root of the problem
> Authoritarianism, whether Nazism, Soviet Communism, or French Revolutionary Governmentr any
or any monarchy, or any theocracy, or any oligarchy.
I understand why you cite Nazism, or Soviet communism (or Mao Communism), but the French Revolutionary Government lasted less than 3 years, was at war with half of europe because their King decided to declare war for no reason, and had to find who fed intel to half their enemies (and even when the King's letters to his brother in law describing eastern troops movement were discovered, 10% of the parliament voted against his destitution and 40% against killing him for treachery). I'd say that they stopped the violence and decided to free all slaves once the war ended should be a point in their favor.
I do grant that it is very hard. Just as it is hard to have a rational conversation with a cult member. But the fact that it is hard doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying.
You can't possibly complain that any ideals you stand for get suppressed then, surely?
You are refusing democratic process and arguing that media deems people unable to partake in it. This is not even Nazi ideology, this goes way, way beyond Nazism in terms of authoritarianism.
With all due respect, this is gibberish. Refusing to engage a nazi in conversation is hardly suppressing them in any way, shape, or form. Nor is it refusing any kind of "democratic process." It's also preferable you don't yell fire in a crowded theater or bomb on an airplane.
I feel like I have done a somewhat decent job of trying to keep some of that childlike wonder in my own life, even just not abandoning things that I love like video games, watching anime, the occasional cartoon.
I do wonder in practice how this really works for making friends, once you leave camp there is now a distance limitation.
But I have long wondered about the idea of recreating some of the experiences from childhood as adults. Things like camp, maybe going to a "day care", or other things to just not think about all of the stress of life for a little bit.
Sure we have things like going to Disney, amusement parks, adult oriented arcades like Dave and Busters. But as fun as those are they are not really replicating the childhood experience like this seems to do and other things that could be made similar.
Adult day care would be fun. If I had a partner that told me "I'm too busy to do anything this weekend; I signed you up for adult day care though..." ... I would absolutely go. At the very least for the novelty of it.
Not sure where you are; in Texas there are quite a few dude ranches (family/couple/solo friendly despite what the name may imply) that I highly recommend finding one with the level of activity you're in to. Some really get into the rancher thing, others will have light trail horse riding and get more into the social sitting around a campfire communal thing before, during, and after chow time.
My partner and I talk about that occasionally - that we both have the same ‘joy’ over activities that we always have, and we’re not shy about sharing it with the people around us. I think it definitely helps to cultivate a community of likeminded / compatible friends. We give people permission to openly enjoy themselves, and I haven’t really found a down side to that as of yet.
Well... it is nice to get some good news on this front but I can't shake that this is likely short lived given the federal government right now...
There is less and less any reason for them to try to hide their true intentions and can just be more open with their blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc.
Side note: was quite surprised to see a reference to Cloud Atlas. While not surprised given the entire point of that book, it makes me wonder how much these people are actually reading these books and what that looks like.
Well it’s not over yet, this will likely go through many rounds of back and forth appeals since it’s not clear what obligation Florida has to the public in policing content it purchases. It’s not as if they banned you from buying the books, after all.
Seems like they could rely on the librarian to make decisions, then if there's a problem have the administration deal with it, and escalate as normal...
Rather than big government via vague laws that allow random people to control everything in schools.
They could do that. That would be an effective way to protect children while also respecting the children's First Amendment rights. Instead, well...
"Foreseeable consequences are intended consequences."
I think some of the points are valid, but I think the over emphasis on Siri vs Private Cloud is massively overblown. That to me is just the nature of a transition like this and eventually more if Siri will likely fall under "Apple Intelligence" since it makes sense that they would have a single platform on the backend.
Then there is this header:
> "End-to-End Encryption? I’m Not Sure"
Well.. it is still end to end encrypted. Nothing about using Siri to dictate it changes that since you know... your on one of the ends. It is like saying that me taking a screenshot of the conversation somehow broke E2E.
That isn't to say that the concern here is not valid, but there are so many examples of things being twisted and manipulated to get you to use their product that I have a hard time really understanding what is an issue and what isn't.
Like ok you made an app using SiriKit using Apple's recommended settings (which may be recommended for a reason). But do you have the ability to have them not go to apple's servers if you configure it a certain way... it seems the author just ended with "Well it happens when I made this app" and never looked further.
reply