Misguided Apple Intelligence ads
tidbits.com
tidbits.com
There is literally exactly that ad.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BK8bnkcT0Ng
Imho, it's one of the best "Why AI?" ads I've seen so far.
https://youtu.be/kOO31qFmi9A?si=Ww9i4FCxxpMj3YIs
The guy in the Excel commercial comes off as cool, confident, and skilled at using Excel. Both ads show off the speed of the tool in high stakes scenarios, but the Apple one makes the user look like an idiot. Also the Apple ad shows everyone with macs, so he has no advantage over everyone else.
FWIW, everyone else in that video comes off as a bunch of idiots, so I'm not sure it's that much better.
- In 2019, Apple released a three-minute ad online. The ad was called The Underdogs
- In 2020, The Underdogs moved locations. […] The ad was seven minutes
- On 11 March 2022, Apple released the third installment of the series. […] This ad spot is a staggering nine minutes long
Looking at https://youtube.com/watch?v=JJwdhWM9d0Y, there’s a fourth episode of about 5 minutes, taking total length to 26 minutes.
I also remember there being an older televised Apple ad of over 20 minutes, but cannot find it.
This is very different from someone who was given a report he/she could not possibly have read in time!
This guy is the person who uses Sparknotes instead of doing his homework. I'm all for efficiency, but if a summary could fully capture the report, the author wouldn't have written the report, they'd just have written the summary.
Of course, maybe in this brave new world we're living in, the report's author did just write a summary, then used AI to turn it into a multi-page document, which readers used AI to turn back into a summary.
Is this what we want?
That is not my experience with corporate writing in the slightest.
Easier said than done, I get it. But I'm scared of AI normalizing this. What happens when no one, even the good writers, can write for actual people any more, because everything is uniformly thrown into an AI?
But everyone will know everyone can do this. So it will stop impressing anyone, maybe.
I'm curious if you work in a corporate environment. Middle management gets swamped with stuff like this because the person who wrote the reports thinks the longer the better to show off how good they are at their job.
Amazon fought this trend with their commonly referred 1-pager and >=6-pagers.
I don't have hard rules like Amazon, but one of my common pushbacks on my team is make documents shorter.
Where'd you get that from? That everyone else had read it / lied about reading it?
In other words: beware of fundamental attribution error.
Instead, he lied. And while I don't think that's some unforgivable crime—there are absolutely circumstances that could justify it—I don't think that's what the ad is portraying. You have to go out and come up with additional external factors which the ad does not provide evidence for.
The guy was clearly zoned out and caught off guard. And yeah, maybe that's because he was taking care of a crying newborn all night and is sleep deprived, but that's not the simplest explanation or the one Apple intended for us to think about.
I think these LLMs are tremendously useful and the ads undersell them. But I can also appreciate that the ads have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and showing real workflows in 30sec is difficult.
Reviewing emails, summarizing meetings, documents, key points, TPS reports.
Are these all seriously that impactful? If your job can be condensed into information summarising, then your job can and will be done by the same machine that is doing the summarising for you.
Any and all "edge" a human might have in that business (unique insight and perspectives, noticing details that sound okay but actually aren't, human pattern recognition) get lost in the human-AI-AI-human translation. In this commercial, if prospectus was written by AI and is now summarized by AI, what is the point of the people around the table? The ad's should be used to show it's impact to scale the edge instead of scaling generic business bullshit.
If your company is a swarm of people using AI to generate all input/output, your company might scale wider but it will (mostly) be doing mediocre work - unless your hires are explicitly good at using AI. If it's mediocre and scaled wide, others can easily create the same output and beat you with pricing.
tl;dr; scale the edge, not the middle.
On the other side though, it definitely portrays the AI user as a sort of slacker, which is an interesting way to advertise a tentpole feature.
I think this is called “meeting users where they are”.
Granted, some of these tack too far towards stupid to be relatable, but I get why they picked this approach.
My bottom of the barrel so far was the "Write me a training plan to run a marathon" commercial. Because obviously sitting down for 30 minutes, and not the multiple months of sticking to a training regimen, was the blocker there...
This attitude seems aligned with Apple's general assumption (and apparent preference) that iOS users remain passive media consumers.
Android's JVM bullshit makes it a "passive media consumption" platform, but iOS and iPadOS have real-time features that let them respond to input events with very low latency, perfect for creative work like music and visual art. Accordingly, the best creativity apps for mobile platforms work ONLY on iOS and iPadOS.
Yes
> Pretty much all of them use Apple gear inasmuch as they work digitally, even iPhones and iPads.
There's a big difference between one musician I know who uses their iPhone to watch YouTube videos to improve their guitar-playing technique - to another that uses their iPhone only to capture samples because their DAW setup couldn't possible fit on a screen that small.
None of the musicians I know (games-industry folk, mostly) uses an iPad as a DAW because it's a massive usability downgrade from a desktop (e.g. plug-ins support in Logic-Pro-for-iPad is lacking; or simply quickly dragging-and-dropping files around directly from the filesystem; and the inability to use shared projects from a company LAN). (I'll admit I have zero exposure to this area, so please correct me if I'm overstating these issues).
---------
> We need to can this "passive media consumption" nonsense with respect to Apple
I remember when Apple added Stickers to iMessages - and was appalled that they had decided that normal users should not have the ability to make their own stickers (unlike every other chat program out there). I think Apple's attitude towards their users is very much a valid criticism.
Your point about stickers might have been true in the past, but it's wrong now. Since I don't use a lot of stickers, I looked it up, and it was added in iOS 17 last year.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/iphone/iph9b4106303/io...
Sort-of - but what Apple actually did just reinforces my position: iOS does not let you provide your own pre-made ARGB images, it only lets you use their own photo-subject segmentation tool - whatever sticker image Apple Photos generates is at the behest of whatever their image-segmentation algorithm thinks is best: i.e. you lack full creative-control.
(To be clear: I'm not decrying the sticker-from-photo feature, I think it's nifty - I'm just miffed that there's no way for me to simply provide my own raw images).
This exactly. For a keyboard/synth musician, the iPad is amazing. I could list dozens of apps, but Sunrizer, Animoog, and Korg Gadget are fantastic and I've used them for years. Synth apps work well on the multitouch screen and are very responsive. Some apps like Animoog and Geoshred also provide an expressive multitouch playing surface.
For visual/digital artists, Procreate + Apple pencil is a fantastic combination and basically reason enough to buy an iPad.
I think the main reason those products are available on iOS and iPadOS is because most creatives have _always_ been on Apple's products and iOS users are on average wealthier and more willing to pay for software. Also, I bet the original version of the software has been available on MacOS for a long time, so on top of having paying customer it would also make it easier to port to iOS than Android.
There's TermUX on Android, doesn't mean most phones are made for and mostly used for software development/sysadmin tasks. Sure, there are a few people that'll use their Android phone to SSH into something in a pinch, but 99% use their Android phone for social media, emails, web and youtube just like Apple iPhone users.
Yes. The audio/synth app situation has improved significantly for Android (iirc Caustic started on Android and was later ported to iOS, and Korg Kaossilator has been ported to Android), but it's still behind iOS/iPadOS, particularly the breadth and quality of iPad music apps. But if Korg ever ports the rest of their (excellent) music apps, Android musicians will be in for a treat.
> ObjectiveC/Swift are also garbage collected
Both use Automatic Reference Counting:
https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/documentation/the-swift-pr...
The truth is there are a ton of folks like this. As long as there’s an ad campaign that gives them permission to offload a human experience to a tech company they’ll feel ok doing it. That’s gross but it makes people more and more reliant on apple’s latest feature and so keeps them locked in their ecosystem. I see why Apple does it.
People who know better look down on this but there’s lots of folks with money who don’t know better.
I mean, all those auto-composed photo slideshows universally suck; you've seen a couple (per vendor), you've seen them all. Easiest way to tell - music. Second easiest way - goofy title, some photos don't match the purported theme.
As for the prospectus video - that I suspect would fly, and will fly for many years to come, because whether it works depends entirely on how well this guy can sell it. Being able to talk off skimming the summary of the Cliff's Notes of a book, without the teacher realizing you didn't read the actual thing, is a skill people tend to master in high school.
I'm pretty sure most teachers could tell you which of their students actually did the reading.
If they could tell but did not, they were derelict in their duties.
I chose to believe our teachers were overworked, and some of us were good enough at extrapolating on the go and selling it, than that our teachers cared so little they'd just play along.
This argument is completely dishonest, despite your sanctimonious tone. The premise of the ads is that the person intentionally misleads others by hiding the fact they're using Apple Intelligence. Apple is celebrating a culture where you lie to family and coworkers over trivial things, which is why these ads are so contemptible.
If the office worker in the commercial had said "I didn't read that paper, let me ask Apple Intelligence" then I'm guessing his coworkers would correctly think he was lazy and bad at his job, and would probably take a closer look at his work if they knew an AI was doing it. Instead he lied and his coworkers bought it, allowing him to corrupt his company with AI slop. These ads are just totally indefensible.
Somehow, I don't think this has escaped the ad agency that made these.
Respect without the effort of earning it is worthless. Love without any effort is a lie.
These ads just tell us that you can have something that requires effort, without the effort part. The second ads even ends with the look that says "I will do it this way from now on".
This feels... weird. If the ad was released early 2023, it would still be relevant. But hey, we are now at Nov 2024, exactly after two years after ChatGPT was released. Anyone who has been half paying attention to "AI" wouldn't be impressed any more with a formal, professionally written email from anybody. Saying that as someone whose performance review had evidence of being "enhanced" with ChatGPT but didn't find it surprising.
Well, what's more weird is the setup itself. Do bosses expect to read this kind of super formal email from their direct reports? Do people actually write first versions of emails like that? Something is off here. At least I don't think it ever occurred to me that I need to "rewrite an email to my boss using a professional tone" to my direct boss.
I'm not ashamed to admit that, more than once, I used AI tools to turn a bullet-point-list-shaped brain dump into a first draft of an e-mail. I never sent it out without an almost complete rewrite, though - the point was just to get through the mental block caused by forced thinking mode switch.
--
[0] - I suspect software devs more than company average, but I have no hard evidence for that, could be just my bias.
[1] - Myself, often, when my mind is busy processing something else. In those situations, I write even more verbosely than my verbose usual.
You’re vastly overestimating the self awareness of the average person.
I think this is probably aimed at normal people. I expect the tight integration looks much, much more attractive than typing into some random site.
now waiting for the persistent memory GPT where the employees start manipulating things to always give Dave a great review. I can see dave "polluting" the data the GPT is fed, or all other shenanigans to ensure a good review other than actually just doing a good job
These won’t age well.
Next up: A tool to help absentee parents trick their lonely children, pretending that they observed the school play and were impressed with their child's contribution.
I think all these consumer facing AI tools seem to not address the root of all the problems that connected technology has brought on. It's like being allergic to dairy but instead of abstaining, you just take a lactaid pill and keep eating pizza.
So I read your last sentence as:
"It's like seeing the problem but instead of taking the time to understand and resolve it, you just take some vague voodoo-like mitigation action and keep going through the motions."
Which to me, sums up most people's approach to using AI. Maybe VoodooAI would be a good brand, it's about as far as most people understand it...
Is their tent-pole feature really just "we made Photos' existing features slightly more general"?
Such collages are obvious to spot, too. There's only a limited selection of music, which you quickly memorize, some photos don't really match the generated title, the mood is off, etc.
This ad would've made sense 5 years ago, not today.
Cue the guy driving a carpool full of work colleagues who receives a text from his wife, which the car then reads aloud to everyone (I don’t remember it exactly, but this was the gist of it). Yeah, it makes a funny ad, but it also highlighted everyone’s exact reason why they don’t really want this type of thing.
In the AI cases, it’s about incompetent people being able to appear competent, while the people really putting in the effort are just suckers to be fooled.
I mean, the forgotten birthday/event that's results in a scramble to get/do something is not an uncommon concept in ads, where some product sweeps into the rescue. I'd imagine it's almost a cliche because it's effective.
She forgot his birthday but scrambles and buys him a 7-eleven hot dog - funny, self-aware. 7-Eleven doesn't actually believe the hot dog is a very good birthday gift.
She forgot his birthday but scrambles and buys him a Rolex - materialist, not for everyone but will appeal to some. Not very funny.
She forgot his birthday but scrambles and buys him a cheap fake Rolex - not that funny, just an ad for counterfeits?
Does Apple think that having an AI slap together some images without your involvement is a thoughtful birthday gift? Then why show it so clearly as insincere and low-effort?
Or do they think it's a bad gift? Then what are they trying to say about their product? We assume they want to be perceived as a premium brand.
The ad could have just played it straight. Like, couple sits in couch, "Remember when we were at Ibiza?" "Let's relive those moments" (types "Ibiza vacation" into phone) (music swells as couple looks at phone screen with fake smiles)
But that would be tacky. Funny at their expense. So they add a twist, make it so they are in on the joke. But now the messaging isn't coherent. Is the product good? bad? premium? cheap?
I know nothing about the ad business, but I feel like Apple must have engaged with an irregular agency for this. They're so out of character for the company.
It is not at all clear to me that the most-upset of these critics are among “everyone”.
“Is the message that Apple Intelligence is aimed at the perpetually lazy?”
This does not come off as a better-literate reading in context, either, I think.
As another comment mentioned, they're tone deaf if not dystopian: If this is the best image Apple could contrive for their AI features....Jesus Christ.
As to the perpetually lazy bit, the ads are literally predicated on making a "humorous" situation around a thoughtless self-involved sociopath and the office clown. Supremely out of character for Apple, and they gave their agency too much rope.
I’m not, the couple links I’ve seen here, including this one, have been written as if the ads aren’t intended to be funny, and judge (and describe) them as if the ads are trying to straightforwardly communicate something, rather than being a particular common sort of humorous ad—and, perhaps, failing at what they’re trying to say and communicating the wrong thing, or being bad for other reasons, but that’s not how this piece comes across.
I’m not wondering if everyone who doesn’t like them didn’t understand them, but whether the ones bothering to blog about it are misreading the ads? Has it just been the links I’ve happened to have followed on the topic here?
The product is asking your to give up your creativity, your will for self improvement, your potential to excel. Once you externalize these parts of your brain to someone else who you have to pay to think for you, after a long enough time you will have nothing at all to offer society yourself.
It's a classic 'someone is being mildly bad, but the amusement of everybody it works out anyway'.
I'm thinking they're aiming to capitalize on mixed feelings people have about AI. These ads let the viewers have their social objects to diss AI - "haha, AI is for the losers like in that Apple ad", while at the same time making them say, in the privacy of their thoughts, "but I am not a loser and I could use such functions too!".
(This should also be read as a joke.)
Nice try, Apple Intelligence.
If however your ethics are based on equality of outcome, then that distiction does not hold. You do not see any problem with the lazy or incompetent getting the same result as anybody else. In fact, you would regard any other outcome as unethical.
From the latter beleive system, these Apple ads make perfect sense.
However the second one... I don't want to enter the reality where this happens. Despicable.