gumby271

Yeah the volume slider wasn't disabled for 2 seconds after opening the dialog, Microsoft should take notes!

If it was trained on HN, there would be a 60% chance of it just saying "I'm so tired of this request, can we please move on"

This guy doesn't want them to die, he wants them to suffer.

> The entire point of punishment is the cruelty

Jesus fucking Christ

10 days, then we come after you with a big cartoon mallet to make you forget.

Same with the always-on transcription feature that you dont even need to interact with. I like not having to speak with extreme precision, knowing my words are going into some record.

Now imagine knowing that they'll go home and be able to see a nice summary of the various conversations throughout the night. Just very normal social behavior, made easy by Apple.

The always on ai summary feature does not, it just does its thing in the background.

This thread is so fascinating, I had no idea that because I'm comfortable having an intimate conversation with a friend means I'm also okay with a potentially permanent AI summary being generated based on it, and without my knowledge or consent!

Jfc the tedium on this site. Sure, no one makes me feel anything, you're technically right buddy.

I don't appreciate Apple normalizing the already creepy ai note takers that exist and increasing the odds that someone will use them in casual or intimate conversations.

The summary feature is always running, and is also creepy to me.

It's gonna make a loud ass chime when you do that, so I don't think that's the use case Apple was imagining.

Sorry, you're right about the transcript, it's the summary that's generated that's still off putting.

And I don't think we can compare this to weirdos being able to record other people, this is about when my friends come over and I have to wonder if they think it's normal to have running since "it's technically not recording" or "the summary is anonymized. It's normalizing behavior that's just a little weird, like people who use those ai recorders. I fail to see how that's not a violation of my privacy in some way.

Also you don't need to point out stupid gatchas about airpods, don't be an ass.

> How is this different from a privacy standpoint of someone simply memorising what you said in the last fifteen seconds and scribbling it down onto a piece of paper?

I would hope to not be friends with such a fucking weird person tbh. But I guess if it's automated into a sexy device it's fine.

I think if someone followed me and my friend around and kept a transcript and summary of every conversation between and around us in a little notebook, I would have a basis to say my privacy was being violated, right?

I feel like I'd also be a little weirded out to find my date referencing the summary or transcript later, maybe that's just me. Like if I said something personal and they whipped out a notebook and wrote it down real fast, that's unnerving.

It will make me as wary as I am around people that wear those little AI notetaker/recorders, so, very. At least with those it's a single use device that you can spot, now any Apple Watch could be listening, fun!

What sucks is that if you've ever pushed back on the people that use those stupid AI recorders they'll insist they're not actually recording you, its just a transcript and summary, and somehow that's fine. I'm not looking forward to more people explaining that to me, especially hardcore Apple fans.

There's a difference between "weird people could choose to do this creepy thing and violate my trust" and "not weird people could forget to turn off this slightly less creepy thing and still violate my trust" Both of these suck, but honestly I don't appreciate that Apple is making me feel uneasy talking around my friends with Apple Watches. Not because I don't trust my friends, but because now it takes extra work for them to not do something kinda creepy.

The Android feature is matching songs it hears to an on-device database of fingerprints, the other is recording, transcribing, and summarizing all conversations around it. Seems a little different.

> I worry this will suffer from the same lack of developer interest as the AVP did

Apple can force iOS devs to do whatever they want. It may be basic support, but Apple devs will do whatever Apple tells them to do.

I'm not looking to bicker, honest, I'm sorry if a made assumptions about your attitude or expectations to this article.

I think I consider it brave because I know there are people that will say this is simple, or written in a style for children, as you did in your comment. Perhaps I read too much into it, or projected too much than is deserved, but I appreciate someone putting their feelings into the word in a way that will draw the obvious criticism that you immediately provided.

This is a complex topic, AI has us feeling a lot of different ways that conflict, excite, and depress us; and like the author, I also don't know how to deal with that. This is an article that's validating, it confirms that many of us are feeling the same confusing things in a ways both simple to express, and complex to feel. Reading your comment after feeling that made me want to say something, even if I didn't do it eloquently or fairly.

I still don't think you needed to phrase it the way you did, I don't think you need to offset positively with a negative comment, that's pretty weird to me. But I appreciate you sharing your feelings and motivations to help me understand you better. I'm not looking to bicker or fight, and I appreciate you sharing what led you to comment.

Sometimes it's okay for us to express our feelings plainly, without the need for complex structure to make it sound more impressive. I'm more impressed by anyone brave enough to do that than someone trying to abstract their feelings into something less raw.

Let people feel things, and don't shit on their work, that's uncalled for.

I don't think Google is moving to disallow them, it's more that the EU said that it's fine for Apple to still own app notarization / developer verification even outside of Apple's app store. Google saw this and said, cool, we'll add that to Android too so we can also get our (undeserved) cut outside of the Play Store. I can install F-Droid or anything else, but if they dont submit papers to Google, I get a big scary warning when I install it (I get the same scary warning if a developer distributes apps through F-Droid, but doesn't verify with Google, which is ridiculous too). On iOS if I don't submit to Apple I cant do anything.

It all sucks, and I'm not saying this is a good thing. But Google and Apple are both trying to position themselves as not having monopolies on store fronts, while still forcing notarization and verification to run through them independent of the store being used. And the EU seems fine with this for some insane reason. Google isn't trying to be worse than Apple, they're trying to match Apple.

What should be forced is allowing device owners to install software without the say of Google or Apple. This has been possible on Android for ages, but Google recently decided that they need to collect the ID of any dev that wants to build an apk, independent of distributing it through Google's own store.

Google and Apple can have whatever app storefronts they want, but they shouldn't have a say in what software I can run.

That's really impressive! It says it's available in GBoard on Android but I don't see it yet. I assume like most Google features it will be a rolling release over the course of several months, can't wait to try it some day.

The other real fix is for apps to use the existing apis added in Android 10 to create regions where the OS will not prioritize navigation gestures over input to the app. https://developer.android.com/reference/android/view/View#se...

And a rise in tech companies building products and features that dont benefit the users, knowing we cant really escape at this point.

The article says the same. I think the point is to be aware and try to build things in a way to minimize the chance for abuse. There's nuance and the author says as much.

I've been arguing with folks on Reddit about this lately when it comes to Google's changes to Android (where they've made it more difficult to install any software on your device without Google first tracking the identity of the developer). My argument ultimately comes down to the fact that Google (and Apple already) have built a technology that gives them immense power to control individual computing freedoms, and no matter their internal policy, they still must follow US law. No amount of promises or legit good faith on their part matter, they've made a dangerous technology and are behold to a government that is very eager to censor anything it doesn't like. It's so disappointing to see 1. Google engineers build such a thing, and 2. For people to support it.