t888

TLDR: author bought a phone of eBay that was sold as unlocked, but wasn’t, and doesn’t want to use AT&T.

It’s also worth pointing out that a lot of current “art” is produced under similar constraints to AI art - for commercial purposes and with algorithmic feedback. It’s easy for people to think ‘this is just as good as a human’, when they are only comparing it to soulless corporate art in the first place.

What is that story supposed to mean?

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.

I guess you don’t understand the feature. This isn’t a VR avatar. It’s a representation used for collaborative apps.

This is super interesting. Does anyone know of any other web-of-trust style social networks?

No. I’m not talking about enforcement of anti-trust laws as passed by congress. Do some research about Khan’s own theories and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

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.

Your characterization is inaccurate. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single positive thing I’ve said about Apple, unless you are referring to where I implied that Xcode has improved.

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.

Firstly, while your characterization of Khan is accurate, it’s a huge stretch to call her Apple’s “own” regulator, so yes, I’d say that’s clearly a misrepresentation intended to make what Apple did seem worse than it is - I.e. a lie.

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.

If you haven’t used it recently, you really need to update your view.