> I believe this is a clue to where the GP post is coming from: we can't, therefore the study must be flawed.
How so? They are clearly saying they expected this to be possible already, until this article claimed otherwise (by suggesting AI is contributing something new here).
They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about. For example, maybe it is possible to tell the sex based on the shape of the brain. This doesn't mean that men and woman think differently, which is what people are actually arguing about. And the AI in this study can't proof that, because it doesn't give us any further insights into how cognition works.
This point strikes me as actually pretty mundane and obviously correct. The fact that 5 people immediately seem to have misunderstood it (as in, they are not responding to the argument) seems to tell us something about their priors instead.
>They are saying that this result will not resolve the disputes, because it doesn't address the core thing in dispute: that there are meaningful differences that people actually care about.
That's not their claim. Their claim is that there is some flaw ("confounding thing") in the study. They then go on to say that men and women's brains are "indistinguishable." Well, of course you will automatically assume there is a flaw if that is your belief.
I know what you mean, but there are plenty of mundane and labor-intensive tasks in art too. Ever try to make background characters or landscapes for a video? It's stuff that nobody pays attention to, but it still has to look plausible. Real artists will use Sora as a tool to automate those tedious tasks, so they can focus on storytelling.
That means that for the 9 people interviewed that returned the devices, Bloomberg would have had to contact 900 AVP buyers just to find those 9 (1%). Either that, or the ratio is off.
There will still be a job for animators, at the very least. They'll flesh out the armature (skeleton) animations, and AI will paint over it, like a style transfer. Imo human-driven animation will stay around for a bit longer because of the nuance of movement and connection to storytelling.
Keep in mind the criterion for dupeage: has the story had significant attention yet? One can argue that this story was major enough that half an hour of front page time wasn't significant, even though the thread did get 100 comments.
The second submission, however, spent 16 hours on HN's front page and got over 800 comments. That clearly qualifies as the story having significant attention, meaning that it was both standard and correct to downweight the current submission. The only question is whether it should have been formally marked [dupe] or merely downweighted as a follow-up (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...), but we don't have precise rules around that.
The creation of the Vision Pro, and now this direct assault on the open web, makes me believe that Apple is no longer has the vision to lead the industry effectively. It's a shame because it has enormous momentum behind it, which means every bad decision, like this one, will be felt be millions of people for years.
Apple is a 3 trillion business that is out of growth drivers. They will need to squeeze more money out of everybody in the ecosystem to appease wall street. Or launch a new 500bn product line but I don’t think they have anything big in the pipeline.
I agree. Money is not in the cars. Money is in the data collected from the users - 360 degree camera footage, offloading AI training risk to users, and of course collecting all of that sweet user data [1]. In some cases, the car manufacturer will somehow collect your sexual history.
The AVP is one of the most out of touch products I've ever seen from a respected brand, and I can almost hear Steve Job's scathing criticisms of it, based on everything I know about him. Not to mention, it goes against the increasing trend of less screens and less tech. The fact that it got made and is being pushed so hard as the next step in computing, is bonkers.
So to me, it contributes because it is another data point that the leadership has compromised its ability to consistently make forward thinking decisions.
Have you looked at the patent? How is that supposed to be the Vision Pro?
It's just a pair of sky googles with 2 displays in front of the eyes, connected to an Airpod for watching media. It's not so much Vision Pro as it is Nintendo Virtual Boy. Actually the virtual boy was more advanced since it let you play games.
That kind of stereo display headset for watching videos inputs from external sources has existed since the 70's, long before Apple's patent 2007. How did they even get a patent for it? Another proof the patent system is broken since it seems they'll let you patent anything.
Apple not allowing the open web stifles innovation, including the AVP. The apps in the app store will be dictated by Apple. So whatever their ethical framework is, that is what will receive innovation.
While that seems fair, the problem is that the strongest form of software innovation I have seen is where developers can freely plug in.
AVP has support for WebXR behind a flag in Safari that allows the full immersive mode of spatial computing (don't say Vee Are) and that -- so far untill now - is an opening for non-app store third party experiences.
Every mbp looking the same with their attrocious glowing branding on the lid.
One-button mouse.
No audio jack.
The walled garden.
Charging a fee for the dev tools.
Yeah, these are all subjective - it's all crap I hate.
But my point is: is anything that anyone dislikes actually out of character for Apple? Or is it business as usual? Maybe Samsung will also create a useless headset and directly assault the open web too, making Apple still the 'industry leader'.
OK, I'll bite. While I agree with many of your criticisms, some are IMHO incorrect.
- Apple did Firewire at a time when it was the leading interface for professional video stuff. As Apple marketed their computers to video professionals back then, it made a lot of sense. Also, USB 2.0 wasn't on the market yet or hardly had any adoption, and FW was pretty much the only modern high-speed serial interface. At the time, FW was also a much more capable (if more complex) interface than USB. After USB 2.0 got more adoption, FW 800 was released with almost twice the bandwidth of USB 2.0.
- Forcing USB C adoption upon the industry was a good thing, just like getting rid of floppy disks, serial and parallel ports, and Flash (the latter one being debatable as the beginner-friendly authoring system still leaves a big gap that hasn't been filled since). The transition period was admittedly very painful with all the adapters. But now pretty much all devices charge via USB C, just how neat is that? I know that Apple didn't give up Lightning for USB C in iPhones voluntarily, so they needed a bit of help by the EU in their own mission here :)
- They reversed on the touch bar, thus admitting their mistake. It was indeed horrible, though.
- The glowing Apple on the lid hasn't been there any more for a decade or so
- Dev tools aka Xcode are free, the fee you're probably referring to is for getting stuff into the App Store
In the end, you're correct - haters gonna hate, Apple will be Apple, people will buy their stuff anyway.
It's like the Monkey's Paw from the Simpsons: you can have a program that understands what you mean, but you can't understand how it really works.
It's just another tool in the toolbox. Personally, I think we've reached the limits of "computers do exactly what you ask them to do, to a fault." I'm interested to see how the opposite direction works out for us.
>Personally, I think we've reached the limits of "computers do exactly what you ask them to do, to a fault.
Good point, maybe this is the dawn of a new kind of computer engineering, a higher level, fundamentally social one.
We already see people "hacking" chatGPT to reveal its system prompts or get around its given boundaries using nothing but clever conversational logic tricks.
The social contract has been that these big companies benefit from the free work of open source maintainers, and they continue to work together to support open standards. This latest maneuver from Apple, while well within their rights, is a big FU to everyone who builds and maintains the software that they depend on. They've broken the contract by continuing to hobble open web tech.
I hate this outcome as much as the next guy and I'm sure Apple could have continued to support PWAs if they wanted to. And they should have done it.
That being said, I'm tired of the argument that OSS maintainers are being owed anything (beyond gratitude). They publish their software under licences they themselves choose. As long as someone follows the license, they are good.
If you don't want your work to be used for commercial activities in exchange for nothing, then don't publish it under a license permitting that.
I don't mean to imply that the OSS maintainers are owed anything, because I don't believe that. There is still a social contract without anyone being owed anything. You haven't really given an example of why you don't think it exists.
Also, to what do I owe the honor of you creating a username based on mine, specifically to reply to me?
The maintainers say in the LICENSE files that their creations can be used by anyone for commercial activities with no strings attached. Once they say that, no one who wants to use the creation has any responsibility to uphold any social contract. But I'm just repeating myself.
> Also, to what do I owe the honor of you creating a username based on mine, specifically to reply to me?
A social contract is not defined by a LICENSE file.
Developers are under no obligation to create new software for a hostile company's products. Let's see how many vision pro apps get created if Apple keeps shitting on open standards.
