7 ms·

Ditto. They'll use it now while they stand to benefit and in 3 years they'll be lambasting OpenAI publicly for not being private enough with data and pretend th

by lanza 2y ago

Ditto. They'll use it now while they stand to benefit and in 3 years they'll be lambasting OpenAI publicly for not being private enough with data and pretend that they never had anything to do with them.

nextworddev 2y ago
This partnership is structured so that no data is logged or sent to OpenAI.
- wmf 2y ago
  The UI shows a "do you want your data to be sent to OpenAI?" popup.
  - noahtallen 2y ago
    The parent is partially right, the keynote mentioned that OpenAI agreed to not track Apple user requests.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      I would like to see that codified in a binding agreement regulators can surface in discovery if needed. Trust but verify.
      - astrange 2y ago
        California and EU law require keeping data like that to be opt-in afaik, so it doesn't need a promise to not do it.
        voytec 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
        I'm reasonably sure you just described the SEC and the (paraphrasing Matt Levine) "everything is securities fraud"-doctrine. Yes Apple has some wiggle room if they rely on rule-lawyering, but.. I really don't think they can wide-spread ignore the intention of the statements made today.
- dosinga 2y ago
  That won't stop Apple from lambasting later
- moralestapia 2y ago
  Some people here somehow thinking they will simultaneously outsmart: * The CEO of a three trillion dollar company that employs 100,000+ of the best talent you could find around the world, with the best lawyers in the world one phone call away. Also, one of the best performing CEOs in modern times. AND * The CEO of the AI company (ok ... non-profit) that pretty much brought up the current wave of AI to existence and who has also spent the best part of its life building and growing 1,000s of startups in SF. Lol.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - observationist 2y ago
    You make it sound like it's merit or competence that landed Cook in that position, and that he somehow has earned the prestige of the position? I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most people with an IQ above 120 would do as well. Apple is an institution unto itself, and you'd have to repeatedly, rapidly, and diabolically corrupt many, many layers of corporate protections to hurt the company intentionally. Instead, what we see is simple complacency and bureaucracy chipping away at any innovative edge that Apple might once have had. Maintenance and steady piloting is a far different skillset than innovation and creation. Make no mistake, Cook won the lottery. He knew the right people, worked the right jobs, never screwed up anything big, and was at the right place at the right time to land where he is. Good for him, but let's not pretend he got where he is through preternatural skill or competence. I know it's a silicon valley trope and all, but the c-class mythos is so patently absurd. Most of the best leaders just do their best to not screw up. Ones that actually bring an unusual amount of value or intellect to the table are rare. Cook is a dime a dozen.
    - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
      I was with you until your last sentence. By all accounts Cook was one of the world's most effective managers of production and logistics -- a rare talent. He famously streamlined Apple's stock-keeping practices when he was a new hire at Apple. How much he exercises that talent in his day-to-day as CEO is not perfectly clear; it may perhaps have atrophied. In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was very accomplished, in ways you can't fake, before becoming CEO.
- kokanee 2y ago
  The partnership is structured so that Apple can legally defend including language in their marketing that says things like "users’ IP addresses are obscured." These corporations have proven time and time again that we need to read these statements with the worst possible interpretation. For example, when they say "requests are not stored by OpenAI," I have to wonder how they define "requests," and whether a request not having been stored by OpenAI means that the request data is not accessible or even outright owned by OpenAI. If Apple writes request data to an S3 bucket owned by OpenAI, it's still defensible to say that OpenAI didn't store the request. I'm not saying that's the case; my point is that I don't trust these parties and I don't see a reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. The freakiest thing about it is that I probably have no way to prevent this AI integration from being installed on my devices. How could that be the case if there was no profit being extracted from my data? Why would they spend untold amounts on this deal and forcibly install expensive software on my personal devices at no cost to me? The obvious answer is that there is a cost to me, it's just not an immediate debit from my bank account.
  - cyanydeez 2y ago
    Requests are not stored by openai, but stored by Apple and available on request. Is how I interpret that. It's similar to that OneDrive language which was basically allowing user directed privacy invasion. Inevitably,openai will consume and regurgitate all data it touches. It is not clean and anyone thinking openai won't brutalize your data for it's race to general AI is delusional in one of several ways.
    - appplication 2y ago
      I’m not sure I understand the paranoia that Apple is secretly storing your data. Sure they could secretly do so but it doesn’t make any sense. Their whole schtick is privacy. What would Apple benefit from violating what is essentially their core value prop? They’d be one whistleblower away from permanent and irreparable loss of image.
      - cyanydeez 2y ago
- LtWorf 2y ago
  Sure
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chaosmanorism 2y ago
[flagged]

by lanza 2y ago

nextworddev 2y ago

This partnership is structured so that no data is logged or sent to OpenAI.

wmf 2y ago
The UI shows a "do you want your data to be sent to OpenAI?" popup.
- noahtallen 2y ago
  The parent is partially right, the keynote mentioned that OpenAI agreed to not track Apple user requests.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I would like to see that codified in a binding agreement regulators can surface in discovery if needed. Trust but verify.
    - astrange 2y ago
      California and EU law require keeping data like that to be opt-in afaik, so it doesn't need a promise to not do it.
      - voytec 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - hnaccount_rng 2y ago
      I'm reasonably sure you just described the SEC and the (paraphrasing Matt Levine) "everything is securities fraud"-doctrine. Yes Apple has some wiggle room if they rely on rule-lawyering, but.. I really don't think they can wide-spread ignore the intention of the statements made today.
dosinga 2y ago
That won't stop Apple from lambasting later
moralestapia 2y ago
Some people here somehow thinking they will simultaneously outsmart: * The CEO of a three trillion dollar company that employs 100,000+ of the best talent you could find around the world, with the best lawyers in the world one phone call away. Also, one of the best performing CEOs in modern times. AND * The CEO of the AI company (ok ... non-profit) that pretty much brought up the current wave of AI to existence and who has also spent the best part of its life building and growing 1,000s of startups in SF. Lol.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- observationist 2y ago
  You make it sound like it's merit or competence that landed Cook in that position, and that he somehow has earned the prestige of the position? I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most people with an IQ above 120 would do as well. Apple is an institution unto itself, and you'd have to repeatedly, rapidly, and diabolically corrupt many, many layers of corporate protections to hurt the company intentionally. Instead, what we see is simple complacency and bureaucracy chipping away at any innovative edge that Apple might once have had. Maintenance and steady piloting is a far different skillset than innovation and creation. Make no mistake, Cook won the lottery. He knew the right people, worked the right jobs, never screwed up anything big, and was at the right place at the right time to land where he is. Good for him, but let's not pretend he got where he is through preternatural skill or competence. I know it's a silicon valley trope and all, but the c-class mythos is so patently absurd. Most of the best leaders just do their best to not screw up. Ones that actually bring an unusual amount of value or intellect to the table are rare. Cook is a dime a dozen.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    I was with you until your last sentence. By all accounts Cook was one of the world's most effective managers of production and logistics -- a rare talent. He famously streamlined Apple's stock-keeping practices when he was a new hire at Apple. How much he exercises that talent in his day-to-day as CEO is not perfectly clear; it may perhaps have atrophied. In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was very accomplished, in ways you can't fake, before becoming CEO.
kokanee 2y ago
The partnership is structured so that Apple can legally defend including language in their marketing that says things like "users’ IP addresses are obscured." These corporations have proven time and time again that we need to read these statements with the worst possible interpretation. For example, when they say "requests are not stored by OpenAI," I have to wonder how they define "requests," and whether a request not having been stored by OpenAI means that the request data is not accessible or even outright owned by OpenAI. If Apple writes request data to an S3 bucket owned by OpenAI, it's still defensible to say that OpenAI didn't store the request. I'm not saying that's the case; my point is that I don't trust these parties and I don't see a reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. The freakiest thing about it is that I probably have no way to prevent this AI integration from being installed on my devices. How could that be the case if there was no profit being extracted from my data? Why would they spend untold amounts on this deal and forcibly install expensive software on my personal devices at no cost to me? The obvious answer is that there is a cost to me, it's just not an immediate debit from my bank account.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  Requests are not stored by openai, but stored by Apple and available on request. Is how I interpret that. It's similar to that OneDrive language which was basically allowing user directed privacy invasion. Inevitably,openai will consume and regurgitate all data it touches. It is not clean and anyone thinking openai won't brutalize your data for it's race to general AI is delusional in one of several ways.
  - appplication 2y ago
    I’m not sure I understand the paranoia that Apple is secretly storing your data. Sure they could secretly do so but it doesn’t make any sense. Their whole schtick is privacy. What would Apple benefit from violating what is essentially their core value prop? They’d be one whistleblower away from permanent and irreparable loss of image.
    - cyanydeez 2y ago
LtWorf 2y ago
Sure

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

chaosmanorism 2y ago

[flagged]