Turn it Off, or don't enable it from the start.

It's not that hard. Why are people so hell bend on being just... stupid and lazy.

The classical twist of blame here isn't it? The next problems, that it cannot be distinguished at a glance with a clear mark, that it is enabled without warning and so on... There is always a way to twist it victim blaming...

That's fair for Apple's interest in sending random news headlines to iPhones that never asked for it. Those were often irrelevant, but at least they were true. Users can turn those off when they realize how they don't need them.

Making up headlines and sending those is much worse, and unhappiness with Apple is completely justified, especially for the reporters given credit for the false statements. Consider your reaction if you were working in an office and the person next to you frequently shouted inaccurate statements at you about things you needed to check. Yes, you could and would eventually ignore them, but it wouldn't be your fault if you wasted your time checking out one of those inaccurate statements, the problems caused by any reaction would be their fault, and someone in management might well tell them to stop doing that. We can't make Apple stop doing that, but we have lots of reasons to want them to. Asking users to turn the thing off is not good enough.

It isn't up to users to turn it off.

Almost all this kind of so called AI needs scrapped.

It's dishonestly promoted.

It's producing garbage when not plagiarising.

The environmental cost is too high.

Make it illegal, fine companies 10% of annual turnover if they deploy it,

Nuke it from orbit!!

Oh no, the AI method of neurological networks and their current implementation is fine. The problem arises from applying it to things where they don't work and ignoring that they don't work.

A huge amount of AI is used in material research, component optimizing and so on, saving time and money there - and actually saving energy too in the end. But that does make it to the news, and is not abuse-able for marketing "Yay Notepad Need AI Too Yay!"

They demonstrably don't work in some situations. In that case how do you determine the boundary between those areas where they do work and those where they don't? If you have a hundred or a thousand instances of a system working correctly how can you be certain the next one - or hundred or thousand will still be OK?

Where's my (BBC) Minority Report!

Just treat it as something that is considered to be deployed by the most senior executive of a company. Hold them- or the entire C-suite- legally responsible.

LLMs keep demonstrating that summarising is their weak spot. They can shorten but, because they are inherently stupid and they have no idea what they are doing, these "AI" implementations are unable to distinguish the important from the not important. And that's key for summarising.

[1]When ChatGPT summarises, it actually does nothing of the kind.

[2]AI worse than humans in every way at summarising information, government trial finds

[1] https://ea.rna.nl/2024/05/27/when-chatgpt-summarises-it-actually-does-nothing-of-the-kind/

[2] https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/09/03/ai-worse-summarising-information-humans-government-trial/?utm_source=pocket_shared

With hindsight it is truly amazing that News of the World could generate totally bogus news, while drawing less than 50kW of power to do so.

If Apple switches to an AI summary of NotW and The Onion, will it be filled with truths?

Not sure what the NotW has to do with the price of fish, but

"Facts can't be decided by a roll of the dice," said Vincent Berthier, head of RSF's tech and journalism desk. "RSF calls on Apple to act responsibly by removing this feature.

"The automated production of false information attributed to a media outlet is a blow to the outlet's credibility and a danger to the public's right to reliable information on current affairs," Berthier added.

Rolling the dice is how the Bbc gets most of their 'climate' stories, except the automated production of false information is generated by models rather than AI. Not that the Bbc has any climate 'scientists' on staff to 'fact check' their false information, and so their credibility is blown. The public should have a right to reliable information, but generally don't get that from the MSM and their fellow travellers.

Just a quick example for those that prefer fake news-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl9yk42rz7o

Storm Darragh brought 96mph gusts on Saturday, with two men dying during the storm and thousands being left without power. It was the fourth serious storm to hit the UK since mid-October.

This was the 'extreme weather' which insurers are refusing to pay claims on because according to them, winds didn't exceed the 55mph to qualify as a severe storm. By contrast, this is a couple of years old now, but..

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2021/recent-trends-and-future-projections-of-uk-storm-activity

... there is nothing to suggest maximum wind speeds have persistently changed in recent decades.

The only '96mph gusts' were recorded at Berry Head near Torbay, where the weather station's sitting on a hill fort here-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Head

So I rather doubt there'll be starter homes built there, although Pinchbeck would probably recommend building windmills.

So which part of that article is the fake part? That wind speeds reached their number? No, you cited that source. It might not have reached that number at the location where peoples' houses are, or insurance companies may have lied about whether it did to avoid paying a claim, but the article did not say "Storm Darragh brought 96mph gusts to literally every area inside the storm on Saturday,". So maybe they lied about the statement made by Ms. Pinchbeck and she never said what they quote her as saying? Maybe, but it doesn't seem likely.

So I think all we have is that you're saying that Pinchbeck is wrong, which doesn't make the article fake even if it is true. Also, it isn't proved about what she said, because she did not claim that wind speeds have increased. She advises preparation for more heat and more flooding. Is there more heat and more flooding? You could try to prove that there isn't, but you haven't even attempted it. Even if you did, the most you can hope to demonstrate is that Pinchbeck is wrong or lying, not that the article is fake. You can try to claim that her statement about flooding is misleadingly linked with a storm with high winds, but as that storm also prompted several flood alerts and one flood-related death, it's unlikely to be that misleading to talk about both the wind and flood damage in one article.

It's so fake the BBC wrote an article headline the strength and location of the highest gust during the storm, before going on list the damage caused by the storm:

[1]96mph gust recorded at height of Storm Darragh

Are you unaware that weather data records record both the highest gust and the average speed? Did the damage not happen or something? Christ on a bike, it's all so fucking tiresome. The Internet is a foghorn to blithering idiots.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7kk7ny7kmo

It's a shame that the UK squandered it's lead on AI to Apple

Once upon a time, the Daily Mail, Sun, NotW, etc were able to generate totally fake news stories with artificial intelligences powered only by beer, fags and a slavish devotion to the editor

The [1]suggestion by Google's "AI Overviews" to eat one rock a day for a health reasons was actually lifted directly from [2]an article in the Onion .

[1] https://theconversation.com/eat-a-rock-a-day-put-glue-on-your-pizza-how-googles-ai-is-losing-touch-with-reality-230953

[2] https://theonion.com/geologists-recommend-eating-at-least-one-small-rock-per-1846655112/

If Apple are allowed to push untrue content from their lying AI without any consequences everyone should be allowed to push untrue content from their lying BS generators without consequences

if, in this post truth world, lies are free speech, and we have to put up with lies as alternative facts, we should embrace that, produce our own, take it to the extreme. It costs almost nothing compared to building an actual AI, it can be a few lines of python code, can run on a raspberry pi.

Taking the moral high ground won't save us from this sinking ship of shit so we might as well help it hit rock bottom as soon as possible.

Here's some more fake headlines :

"Tim Cook dead at age 56"

"Apple to give away free Iphones for christmas at all Apple stores !"

"Personal details of millions of Iphone users leaked on the dark web"

"Tim Cook stepping down as CEO of Apple"

"Tim Cook to legally change his name to Tim Apple"

Shirley you meant Pyne Apple .... ?

I stopped by a well known burger flinger on the way home from work because it's been a bit of a shit day and I just want to stare at the wall rather than get up off my arse and cook stuff.

Arguably the cheese is some sort of yellow glue, and to be honest I'm thinking there might be more nutritional value in rocks. At least the chips were hot for a change. Hot chips are nice, cold chips (the usual kind) are a sort of grim that would be a torture in hell (you can have all the chips you want in the afterlife, but they're the cold congealed manky ones that should have been thrown out half an hour ago...).

IIRC those sorts of restaurants in France sell beer as well, so some things are still ok.

SWMBO asked one of these monstrosities to summarize a research paper on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, for $WORK. The summary said that they are effective for treating COVID. That’s… not what the study said.

The whole LLM thing needs to be scrapped. It’s a dead-end.

Its not a dead-end, its a roundabout.

someone very rich.

(We need a popcorn icon)

Why should they comment? Other than to send a polite "Thank you" to the BBC for being so complimentary about Apple's services.

At least, that is what the Apple PR flacks believe, after they read the Apple Intelligence summary of the Beeb's communication (hey, those are busy and important flacks, they don't have time to read it all themselves; those lunches won't eat themselves).

It's not an accident. They didn't accidentally roll out a headline summary bot. They didn't accidentally fail to verify that an LLM was the right tool for the job. They didn't accidentally fail to check the bullshit output before publishing it.