Apple will gain more from their own existing ecosystems, all five of them most developers within the Apple ecosystems if they pretty much followed all the rules most of their software will work on day one with very minimum changes, in short, they will be 90% of the way there.
It is a thing to some extent, but there’s also a correlation of companies that do cross-platform for simple apps being cheap on development, and making it work very well on some specific platform isn’t their priority.
I think they had this sitting idle for a while, waiting for their AI division to deliver a capable LLM to power it.
Now they have Muse Spark 1.3, which is somewhere between Sonnet and Flable (Opus tier in my experience) in intelligence, but is very fast at 200+ tok/s.
I have been using Muse Spark 1.3 contrib (the one that shares your data for training but is much cheaper) via OpenCode Go $10/mo plan for coding and the thing flies, it's a pleasure to use. I think the only faster acessible model currently is Gemini 3.8 Flash which is around 250-280 tok/s.
The amount of usage you get is insane when you stack OpenCode GO subsidy on top of contributor.
There is already evidence of groups setting websites and "think tanks" that aren't for human but for influencing AIs scraping them.
I wonder if having the contributor model read and summarize your propaganda would be even more effective. Instead of astroturfing reddit, just feed it to the model directly. Give it generated threads and ask it loaded questions.
Poisoning LLM? I remember at least one study about it. Perhaps but it would have to be very subtle otherwise they might flag your content and shadowban it from future training.
My personal opinion is that trying to make LLMs inefficient is futile and causes even more waste of earth resources.
It's like trying to stop a coal-powered locomotive by parking a truck on the rails. You're just going to make the thing burn more coal before reaching it's destination.
> ...but for serious work, it will never be a sure shot job handled entirely by AI.
Maybe not entirely handed by AI but when AI starts doing it better than most and in a fraction of the time, for a fraction of the cost, why do you think it wont be at least partly delegated to AI?
fair but that's also a matter of time, in my opinion.
1) software doesn't commit suicide like some pilots did.
2) software has superhuman reflexes, processing power and are not affected by emotion.
3) software also will eliminate a whole class of failure modes that caused many crashes in the past like: "I won't seek nearest and safer airport because that will be expensive in fuel costs"
> I won't seek nearest and safer airport because that will be expensive in fuel costs
If, and that's a big if, a pilot did choose a less safe airport because of monetary cost to his airline, it would be because those are the guidelines of the airline. And those guidelines would obviously be in the software too.
There's a fuzzy gray line here. Whether formalized or not, the way I see it, pilots will de facto be penalized for making decisions that cost an airline a ton of money, especially if it turns out to not have been an actual emergency.
I have no idea what legislation is in place regarding this topic and protecting pilots. But even with really good protections, there's no way that it won't affect your social standing with the higher ups if you divert and cost the company exorbitantly.
So pilots do have to make judgment calls about how much they're willing to risk their lives and the lives of their passengers versus a perceived risk, and worse, this judgment call exists in a weird fuzzy area where they're "allowed" to make the safe bet, but in practice, they will be punished for it.
Software doesn't (generally) have this luxury. It decides whether to land or continue flying based on some defined set of conditions.
It can still decide to risk the lives of the passengers. But that decision has to be approved by the airline, and can't live as an informal "you will lose brownie points with management" sword over the necks of the flight crew.
Unless we start to incorporate LLMs and probabilistic models into autopilots... but no-one would ever do that, right? ....
The process is the point for any passionate creative. And yes, for every passionate creative you have a burned out creative who's trying to make ends meet who will use more AI centric tools because both that creative and the people paying them likely do not care how things look when they're completed, only that they're completed, on-time, and under budget.
However, again, an actual creative wouldn't. Imagine you and I are climbing a mountain: I'm climbing the mountain because I love climbing mountains. Climbing mountains is what I live for. I work full time and hard as hell so I can afford trips to climb mountains. You, on the other hand, have a terminal illness and you know that at the top of this mountain is a plant you can eat that will cure you with no side effects. So we're both doing this thing, but for WILDLY different reasons.
If as we're climbing a helicopter flies up and hovers behind us and the pilot says "hey I'll take you to the top of the mountain if you want!" we're going to have very different responses: you don't care about climbing mountains, and even if you do, you're not on this particular climb to enjoy it; you're here because you need this plant to cure your illness. You'd be crazy to not jump in that helicopter and get what you need to live. However, I'd be equally crazy to do the exact same thing, because climbing the mountain is why I'm here, I live for climbing mountains, and I want to climb this one.
This is what AI people do not get about creatives and why we talk past each other. AI people think creative people make things to have finished works, and that's certainly a part of it, and basically a requirement if you'd like to monetize your creativity. But like, I work in software as my day job and I'm bloody good at it, but I use AI to generate code sometimes because the process of developing software doesn't do nearly the same thing for me as creating art. I love making art, and I'd do it even if it made me no money. And I know that, because I've been doing it my whole life and it's never made me money. I feel depressed if I go too long between making works of art. I get ideas building up inside me and they itch and scratch at my being until I sit down and spend several hours turning said idea into something I can see, but like, if I just put a prompt into an AI image generator, I feel absolutely nothing doing that.
All of that to say: I genuinely do not believe AI will completely replace all of this, for no other reason than only a fraction (sizable though it may be) of creatives will ever want it, let alone use it. The quality of it and arguing about if it can "match" a human creative isn't the point, the humanity is the point. I don't want to look at AI generated art, and so I won't, and I especially do not want to replace my creative output with that of Midjourney. Ever. I don't care how good or cheap it is which is why those arguments just bounce off of me. I'm here to climb a mountain and you're offering me a staircase.
For me, the point of creativity is play, exploration, and experimentation. I've always jumped on new technology and new media because they're the best place to find those.
From what I've seen, a lot of the "it's a process" people are more interested in craft than art.
They're not creating anything unique, novel, or personal. They 'create' like an engineering problem - master this skill, copy this style, reproduce some acceptable and recognisable version of this popular imagery/content/genre.
There's a huge gap between competent craft and work that has a voice and is surprising - no matter how it's made.
People with that original voice are rare, and many aren't afraid of AI.
That's not to say that AI doesn't it make even easier to make uninteresting, unoriginal content. But the 'process' can also be fighting the default output quality to transcend that.
I agree. I enjoy creative play and learning how to emulate what the masters can do in film, music, art, engineering and computer science. When it's so easy to take so much for granted, I find it an excellent if somewhat time-consuming way to deepen my appreciation and admiration of their work.
Because there is no demand for it to be fully handled by AI. Nobody is denying that parts will be handled by AI but that’s also you moving the goal post.
Coraline is a claymation movie made by hand, and Wildwood is coming out. But it’s because a cofounder of Nike loves stop motion animation. Despite critical acclaim these movies don’t make money. Just like we don’t have masterwork marble sculpture makers anymore. I have serious doubts anyone will surpass the works of Michaelangelo in the next hundred years; maybe a thousand.
reply