Saw an article a quarter century ago in The Atlantic about simple population models as a way to explain more complex behavior. One was: randomly distribute blue and red cells across a 2D grid. Every frame, pick a random cell: if it has at least one color like it nearby, leave it. If not, move it to a random location. Over many generations, segregated color formed. The article used this to describe something about segregated communities forming. I offer no opinion about the credibility of the article, but it was fascinating to me as a baby nerd, and seems at least a little related to this article’s line of thinking.

This isn’t even to knock either: UI artists are essential to making a UI understandable and enjoyable. But people think the skill sets are the same, and they aren’t.

Disclaimer: am a UX Designer.

Intellectual property exists as a concept to foster the creation of more intellectual property. That is not the case for all private property, because I cannot copy your land or your car infinitely. That’s why IP rights expire at some point, or have fair use that doesn’t harm the IP rights holder, something other forms of property don’t have. Saying that they are equivalent is not foolish—I think that’s a bit extreme—but it doesn’t recognize that they have fundamental differences, and the laws around them have different intended outcomes.

I think AI training falls most likely in the fair use category of intellectual property: there is some societal benefit* that requires no actual harm** to the IP holder, therefore it’s a good trade-off for society if we poke a hole in the social construct of property to get that benefit.

*Let’s put aside the question of whether AI is good for society or private ownership of AI models is good for society. Important questions but separate from the theory. IF IT IS GOOD, it follows the above. If it is not good, then of course it does not.

**Also not a fully settled question. Again, an important debate to have and the tradeoffs here matter. If the harms are small enough, the societal benefit could be worth it. Both notes have to be true for this to be worthy of “fair use”.

I’m pretty sure Apple will do this in macOS 28, and there are some details to improve (guessing from the animation, haven’t installed it). But, people can and should do things just for fun.

There was a Jobs story about how he was bothering the engineer who was working on the calculator so much about the layout that the engineer just made a layout engine Jobs could play with, so he could design it himself.

I do consider that fundamentally different from the people lower in the hierarchy though. That’s what I value about the Cook era keynotes: seeing Apple as not just a single person.

I mean yeah if I had to choose purely for entertainment value, I’d watch Steve all day. But I think it can also be true that seeing the people closer to the metal is very cool too. And I frankly prefer it to seeing Apple as only one person.

I have mad respect for people who can actually throw away a shit ton of financial security for themselves and their families for something they believe in. It’s rare for a reason. Everyone has a price.

If you can get financial security without selling your soul, fewer people would do that, across every industry where selling your soul for security is possible.

It's so much cooler to me to see the people closer to the work talking about it rather than just Steve Jobs, as amazing as he was to watch. I'll take slightly stilted any day of the week as a tradeoff.

Ternus did introduce a new rhetorical thing, though. He framed some of the guiding principles during the opening and throughout as ideas originating from himself, not Apple. Cook rarely said "I" in relation to a claim, other than "I'm so proud of" X, Y, Z. That's a bit more product guy, a bit more Opinionated. I am hoping for more of that.

It's always a potential danger to one's enjoyment to know too much about something though. :)

There are several papers out there arguing that chain-of-reasoning-like output is performative, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05488

It would be awesome if we could reasonably purge all anthropomorphizing language like “tried” or “thought” entirely from AI discussions, because it introduces very sneaky biases in our thinking, but I’ve found it damn hard to do in practice.