7 ms·

If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims. Papers, source code, numbers. Not "we have the biggest, baddest GPU farm" and refuse t

If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims. Papers, source code, numbers. Not "we have the biggest, baddest GPU farm" and refuse to say any more as policy. Under this veil of secrecy and doubletalk, all they have is marketing: Trust the brand rather than objective reality. Many other companies are mature enough to show their cards but Apple keeps declaring victory. Apple writes its own narrative instead of participating. There are mature ways for this to shake out and they don't include your strawman dichotomy.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims. Papers, source code, numbers. Not "we have the biggest, baddest GPU farm" and refuse to say any more as policy. But why? Who cares about papers, source code or numbers beyond the tiny segment that HN caters to? Apple has always been about the user experience. When they discuss a vast majority of prior accomplishments they discuss them, many times, in terms of the layman. Does that mean they can't manufacture? Nope. AI is simply harder to show without the papers / source code you mention but this isn't typical Apple to release that. I honestly don't think they care to go beyond the level of details outlined here. I interviewed with the Siri team twice now and they certainly have some incredibly smart people. Whether they're "winning" against Google, Microsoft or whoever? I say who cares. They want to control their narrative without divulging too much detail like they have always done.
- Chronic9q 10y ago
  > But why? Who cares about papers, source code or numbers beyond the tiny segment that HN caters to? I don't know, say, the thousands of future engineers and researchers, that, you know, make the product?
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Yes. That tiny segment.
    - niels_olson 10y ago
      In my mind, this article is squarely aimed at that segment. They are trying to tell one of the most competitive labor markets in the world, AI developers, that they're hiring, but more importantly, that they're doing interesting things.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > I don't know, say, the thousands of future engineers and researchers, that, you know, make the product? Apple hasn't needed to do that with engineers and researchers pretty much ever; now with AI it's different? Maybe it won't help attract some small portion of people but I'm not sure why it supposedly matters now where it hasn't in the past.
  - brogrammernot 10y ago
    N=1, but as an Engineer I don't care about publishing studies, research and whatnot. I care about creating useful/extremely easy to use products that solve real pain points. The lack of AI/ML papers or research posted by Apple doesn't make me think less of applying for them upon finishing my graduate work. They're a great company to work for, and are most assuredly doing some massively cool stuff with their AI/ML development.
- suyash 10y ago
  +1 Apple doesn't have a great relationship with open source community and that should not discredit them of innovating and trying the use AI, ML, NN in the products. I think even by being closed source, they still are pushing the envelope by inspiring us and their competetion.
- cameldrv 10y ago
  They can put out as many PR pieces as they want, but if they want to be judged on their public accomplishments, they're losing. If we're strictly judging UX, in ML areas, they're behind. Google's speech recognition is superior, Google's automated photo organization is superior, and Google Now is superior to Siri.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims." Why do they need to? At the end of the day all that matters is that the products they ship are good and aren't lacking compared to competitors. The only reason they would provide evidence for what they claim other than that is to appease people calling bullshit and unless it's effecting sales no company should stoop to that.
- soperj 10y ago
  A lot of their products are lacking though. Maps is awful. So is Safari.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    That's a fairly strange reason to question their machine learning claims
  - c0g 10y ago
    Apart from traffic data, where Google is slightly better, maps has been fine for me on ios9 and is better on 10. Apple even learned from the errors they made with the initial launch and have these big open betas for a reason. Safari is perfect for my use cases. Way better battery life, feels lighter than chrome, etc, etc. What exactly in your opinion is worse about modern safari and maps that makes a worse experience for the user?
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    Safari is my browser of choice and I have no issues with it (I much prefer it over Chrome). Maps has occasional issues but it's a solid product now. I use it for walking and transit directions and can't remember the last time I had to fall back on Google Maps.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Same here. Maps works when I'm three quarters blasted, trying to get to a train station I have no idea how to find from a bar I've never been to before, and that has to count as some kind of win.
jomamaxx 10y ago
"If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims." I disagree - they are not making any claims that they care to be validated. They don't care to be 'known as #1' in whatever field. We can believe what we want as far as they are concerned. 'If they are serious' - they will make this technology work to make better experiences for end consumers. 'The proof is in the pudding' - so to speak. I for one don't doubt that their AI 'increased the intelligence of Siri'. But I also don't care about Siri and find it basically useless. AI has different kinds of impacts in different domains. If they make better experiences for us - all the power to them. If not, then not ...

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims. Papers, source code, numbers. Not "we have the biggest, baddest GPU farm" and refuse to say any more as policy. But why? Who cares about papers, source code or numbers beyond the tiny segment that HN caters to? Apple has always been about the user experience. When they discuss a vast majority of prior accomplishments they discuss them, many times, in terms of the layman. Does that mean they can't manufacture? Nope. AI is simply harder to show without the papers / source code you mention but this isn't typical Apple to release that. I honestly don't think they care to go beyond the level of details outlined here. I interviewed with the Siri team twice now and they certainly have some incredibly smart people. Whether they're "winning" against Google, Microsoft or whoever? I say who cares. They want to control their narrative without divulging too much detail like they have always done.

Chronic9q 10y ago
> But why? Who cares about papers, source code or numbers beyond the tiny segment that HN caters to? I don't know, say, the thousands of future engineers and researchers, that, you know, make the product?
- throwanem 10y ago
  Yes. That tiny segment.
  - niels_olson 10y ago
    In my mind, this article is squarely aimed at that segment. They are trying to tell one of the most competitive labor markets in the world, AI developers, that they're hiring, but more importantly, that they're doing interesting things.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > I don't know, say, the thousands of future engineers and researchers, that, you know, make the product? Apple hasn't needed to do that with engineers and researchers pretty much ever; now with AI it's different? Maybe it won't help attract some small portion of people but I'm not sure why it supposedly matters now where it hasn't in the past.
- brogrammernot 10y ago
  N=1, but as an Engineer I don't care about publishing studies, research and whatnot. I care about creating useful/extremely easy to use products that solve real pain points. The lack of AI/ML papers or research posted by Apple doesn't make me think less of applying for them upon finishing my graduate work. They're a great company to work for, and are most assuredly doing some massively cool stuff with their AI/ML development.
suyash 10y ago
+1 Apple doesn't have a great relationship with open source community and that should not discredit them of innovating and trying the use AI, ML, NN in the products. I think even by being closed source, they still are pushing the envelope by inspiring us and their competetion.
cameldrv 10y ago
They can put out as many PR pieces as they want, but if they want to be judged on their public accomplishments, they're losing. If we're strictly judging UX, in ML areas, they're behind. Google's speech recognition is superior, Google's automated photo organization is superior, and Google Now is superior to Siri.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> "If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims." Why do they need to? At the end of the day all that matters is that the products they ship are good and aren't lacking compared to competitors. The only reason they would provide evidence for what they claim other than that is to appease people calling bullshit and unless it's effecting sales no company should stoop to that.

soperj 10y ago
A lot of their products are lacking though. Maps is awful. So is Safari.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  That's a fairly strange reason to question their machine learning claims
- c0g 10y ago
  Apart from traffic data, where Google is slightly better, maps has been fine for me on ios9 and is better on 10. Apple even learned from the errors they made with the initial launch and have these big open betas for a reason. Safari is perfect for my use cases. Way better battery life, feels lighter than chrome, etc, etc. What exactly in your opinion is worse about modern safari and maps that makes a worse experience for the user?
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  Safari is my browser of choice and I have no issues with it (I much prefer it over Chrome). Maps has occasional issues but it's a solid product now. I use it for walking and transit directions and can't remember the last time I had to fall back on Google Maps.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Same here. Maps works when I'm three quarters blasted, trying to get to a train station I have no idea how to find from a bar I've never been to before, and that has to count as some kind of win.

jomamaxx 10y ago

"If they were serious, they'd provide objective evidence for their claims." I disagree - they are not making any claims that they care to be validated. They don't care to be 'known as #1' in whatever field. We can believe what we want as far as they are concerned. 'If they are serious' - they will make this technology work to make better experiences for end consumers. 'The proof is in the pudding' - so to speak. I for one don't doubt that their AI 'increased the intelligence of Siri'. But I also don't care about Siri and find it basically useless. AI has different kinds of impacts in different domains. If they make better experiences for us - all the power to them. If not, then not ...