I liked the cinematic synthwave track too - much better than what a lot of human creators do.

But… the fact that it can generate a pleasant electronica tune is essentially meaningless. This is no Miles Davis.

An LLM generated narrative cannot convey the emotions and experiences of the author. Nor can AI generated music.

Choosing not to commission a show on a particular subject, is not censorship.

And Khan is simply wrong in the claim you quoted. In fact it’s absurd. There is no shortage of commentary on both AI, and China. Apple chose not to buy a few shows about these topics from one person - that’s all. The fact that Khan claims this is ‘dangerous’, when you can literally watch any commentary you like including hers on Apple’s platforms shows that she is out of touch with reality.

I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.

But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show.

However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that.

My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate.

1. Apple didn’t censor anything. 2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything. 3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator.

Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39912156

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

You can’t produce the evidence, because there isn’t any. You made your claim without regard for evidence, because even a trivial search for Apple related material shows an overwhelmingly negative view of Apple here:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

2. I see absolutely no reason why the null hypothesis should be that a randomly selected social group would be unbiased about any particular issue by default. If you think about it for any length of time you should see that as implausible on its face.

3. You’ve just made up a weird ’counter hypothesis’ of pro Apple bias of your own and thrown it into the discussion for no apparent reason, while claiming not to be willing to defend it. That seems underhanded.

4. Why not just provide some evidence? I’m even more sure you’re wrong now that you’ve chosen to defend your position using these tactics, since it would be trivial for you to provide a link if you actually do remember such a discussion.

Apple published an academic paper, as they have been doing for years, showing a model that objectively outperforms GPT-4 on one narrow test. Nowhere do they claim to outperform GPT-4 in general.

Assuming that this is somehow intended to manipulate the stock price is not a rational analysis of what is going on.

Also, Apple has operated on a predicable release schedule for a decade now. They have already said that they will be announcing their AI work at WWDC. It’s unclear what anyone is expecting them to do differently or why it would make any sense.

As for the stock price - the explanations as to why it’s depressed are twofold - one is regulatory action, and the other is frenzied investors who want to jump on the AI bandwagon.

Dropping sales in China is a headline like a stopped clock. Usually wrong, sometimes right, and we only find out which at earnings time.

Note that nobody’s AI product is doing great yet, so for the most part it’s all performative, something that Apple doesn’t engage in.

The EU should do things the way they want to, of course, but the rest of the world should wait to see what the outcome is. I can’t see anything good coming for consumers, not for smaller developers. A few larger players such as Epic might be able make a bit of money as an alternative middle-man, and a lot more people will stop being able to share their photos with their grandparents because they aren’t using the same app anymore.

Social media is so much the problem.

That said, pretty much everything the DMA is about is simply picking winners and destroying value. Facebook is already under threat from competing networks, and society is already growing tired of social media dynamics. Apple’s model is under threat from AI, and Meta is determined to compete with them for in AR/XR.

The EC has said they don’t want to be seen as “Idiot Bureaucrats”, but what they are up to in terms of an unelected state body becoming a hands on manager of Tech makes the CCP look laissez-faire.

The DMA makes Brexit suddenly look like a good idea.

It seems like the thing that changed the dynamic was the ad supported model. Everything else flows from there.