With this announcement, Apple is expanding the definition of PCC to Google Cloud data centers. Theoretically, this is Google Cloud, not Google servers, so there should be a separation of access there.

From the Apple security blog:

> Originally built exclusively on Apple silicon with our world-class software security technologies, PCC set a new bar for AI privacy in the cloud, and continues to power the most demanding Apple Intelligence features. Since then, the wider industry has been working to provide a set of confidential inference primitives that could theoretically be combined to reach the security level of PCC. However, until today, those primitives have never been integrated into a comprehensive, end-to-end confidential inference pipeline capable of operating at global scale. That’s what we’ve done with PCC on Google Cloud, which incorporates PCC’s exceptional security and privacy properties at every stage, including the industry’s most comprehensive transparency guarantees that allow external security researchers to verify our privacy commitments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48456081

But to answer your question directly, I don't have any links for those blogs or comments

From this MacRumors article:

"The new architecture centers on Apple Foundation Models co-developed with Google, which Apple says are adapted to run both on-device and on servers through its existing Private Cloud Compute infrastructure."

And

"The company reiterated that Apple Intelligence relies on on-device processing and Private Cloud Compute, with a promise that user data is only used to execute the immediate request and is not accessible to Apple or third parties. Apple added that outside experts can verify those privacy guarantees "at any time.""

In this statement, their 2025 capex was $91.45B. They expect their 2026 capex to be $180B-190B. And they expect their "2027 capital expenditures to significantly increase compared to 2026."

So they simply don't have the money. Up until now, I thought the bubble talks about AI were silly because all these companies were using cash flow to fund their capex. These numbers are so astronomical now that a company that had $132B in net income has to take debt or issue stock to pay for it.

Crowdstrike up 1067% Cloudflare up 1408% Robinhood up 148%

For an index fund, I would take a break even or even a slight loss on AirBnb to get those Crowdstrike and Cloudflare returns. I do agree with the overall sentiment that the foundation AI companies are overvalued but the whole point of an index fund is not have to analyze each individual company.

But because OpenClaw can just use a web browser like a normal user, you don't need all these APIs and there's no theoretical limitations on the services that can be integrated and automated.

Right now there's a lot of issues/bugs. People have more trust in a deterministic solution like Zapier. But maybe the LLMs and OpenClaw will get there eventually, and if it does, I can see how that's a better solution than a deterministic system.

"The way to address this new reality, however, is with new laws and through strengthening accountable oversight; cheering or even demanding that an unelected executive decide how and where such powerful capabilities can be used is the road an even more despotic future."

But I think you drastically misunderstood the point of this article. Ben is pointing out the implications of Amodei's analogy of advanced AI being like nuclear weapons. The government has a monopoly on nuclear weapons and has extreme regulations and oversight on the companies that help build nuclear weapons for it. And those companies do not tell the government how or when they can use the nukes.

So if advanced AI is like nuclear weapons, why can an unelected executive tell a democratically elected government how to use it?