Actually, really liked the Apple Intelligence announcement. It must be a very exciting time at Apple as they layer AI on top of the entire OS. A few of the major themes.
Step 1 Multimodal I/O. Enable text/audio/image/video capability, both read and write. These are the native human APIs, so to speak.
Step 2 Agentic. Allow all parts of the OS and apps to inter-operate via “function calling”; kernel process LLM that can schedule and coordinate work across them given user queries.
Step 3 Frictionless. Fully integrate these features in a highly frictionless, fast, “always on”, and contextual way. No going around copy pasting information, prompt engineering, or etc. Adapt the UI accordingly.
Step 4 Initiative. Don’t perform a task given a prompt, anticipate the prompt, suggest, initiate.
Step 5 Delegation hierarchy. Move as much intelligence as you can on device (Apple Silicon very helpful and well-suited), but allow optional dispatch of work to cloud.
Step 6 Modularity. Allow the OS to access and support an entire and growing ecosystem of LLMs (e.g. ChatGPT announcement).
Step 7 Privacy. <3
We’re quickly heading into a world where you can open up your phone and just say stuff. It talks back and it knows you. And it just works. Super exciting and as a user, quite looking forward to it.
That’s great. But that’s not how it’s being marketed and sold to the public. It’s being sold as an oracle (as in crystal ball, not database). And it’s misleading and hurting people as a result.
I’ll reiterate: An LLM has no comprehension of what it says.
It’s a matter of engineering ethics, on multiple levels:
I’m not saying the tech should be banned. That’s obviously idiotic. Neural nets can - and are - used for tons of fascinating and excellent applications. It’s just that my staunch opinion is that LLMs are a terrible application of that the tech at this stage of development, and it’s particularly terrible that OpenAI/Microsoft/etc are aggressively foisting this technology on the public, and simultaneously refusing to take any ethical responsibility for it.
To be honest, I’m not sure what we’re arguing - we both seem to have a sound understanding of what LLM is and what it is not.
I’m not trying to defend or market LLM, I’m just describing the usability of the current capabilities of typical LLMs.
I’m saying that I wish that more people involved with the core development of the technology took the ethical considerations seriously, and communicated those concerns as a first-order issue when they talk about applications like this.
It’s fascinating tech, but the way it’s being employed these days is deeply irresponsible.