Every Mac comes with an (undocumented) family member classifier
8rank.ai237 points by infwhispers 4 hours ago
237 points by infwhispers 4 hours ago
At one point in my life, I would've found this data fascinating (if it were opt-in, perhaps)! Now, I find it exhausting.
A similar discussion came up recently with Siri Recap[1], where some expressed how useful they thought it was and that, as a party to the conversations it summarizes, there was very little moral or ethical concern. But I have a social concern.
If I'm having a chat with someone, there's a milieu constructed around the fact that not everything will be remembered verbatim. There are all sorts of social and contextual cues that can easily get lost if listening gets replaced by flat relentless transcription.
With Recaps and this social graph (were it to be productized), the informal fluidity in the way we relate to one another starts to go away, and the expectations that follow from that become artificial and burdensome. In the same way that autocorrect has made typos unacceptable, how could you ever be forgiven for forgetting the name of your colleague's new nephew or the Italian village that your neighbor took a spontaneous boat trip to while on vacation last year?
I too would've found this fascinating at one point, but my jaded older self now just finds this incredibly creepy, unsettling and not at all surprising.
Maybe a decade or so ago I had a discussion with a colleague about chat apps and he said, why would you want to have a conversation on snapchat if it is not saved, and I was like, why are you having this conversation now, you can't save it either.
I guess that those days are soon over.
Autocorrect has had the opposite effect IMO, there’s an expectation that like 1 in 8 words from an iPhone user are not what the sender intended.
Typos have just graduated from misspellings to sentences randomly being nonsensical.
I am the author of the research. Please, feel free to ask me anything. Also, check out the followup research: https://8rank.ai/game/apple-intelligence-knowledge-graph-in-...
Please stop using AI to author your articles. It was really hard to read it despite how interesting the topic was. I dropped halfway because it was just too annoying.
Yeah seriously. Article becomes unreadable immediately after the intro. I believe this author probably could actually write two years ago, it's a shame people are just giving up on that and choose to turn out stuff like this instead.
I was bothered not so much by the slopful article as by the AI-written text in the dashboard that iKnow produces. I ran the program on my Mac and it did display charts and graphs with names of people and organizations I’ve interacted with over the years, but I couldn’t figure out what it all was supposed to mean.
One example: "323 people, 122 events and other records, 200 employers and 1 stored group — as the store on this Mac links them. Read live just now. Colour is what each node is to you: the stored group in red, family and closeness by iKnow’s rules on the kinship scorecard. Size is how many rows in the store name it."
Claude etc. can be prompted to produce clearer explanations than that.
My bad. In my defense, only the technical parts are AI. But, thanks for the feedback; I thought I had unsloped it enough...
It's not possible to un-AI text, only replace it wholesale.
Suggestion for next time: "Review my prose for accuracy, grammar, appropriate strength of claims, etc. Flag any issues for my attention. Do not provide text; this work should not contain any AI-written content." That'll turn it into a very good check that doesn't take your voice away.
Complaints of AI are like a form of friction that eventually goes away. Either AI will undergo a change to create more approachable material, or in general people's tastes will change as they accommodate the style and get used to it. Or some mix of the two. As young people continue to grow up reading AI generated content they will likely begin to find that person written content from before AI grates on their nerves. More, they'll even ask AI to reword documents into preferable AI-like styles.
As an older person, AI grates on me, but I found the meat like "It is a triple store written in a vocabulary of 181 entity classes and 278 predicates: every row is a subject, a predicate and an object. The subject is an entity (a person, an app, an event); the object is either a plain value (a name, a handle, a date) or another entity, which is where the graph gets its edges. The predicate is the interesting part: it says what kind of relationship the system believes holds between the two" quite approachable.
So it was like a meal where I just have to push, say, mushrooms aside as best I can to get to what I like. And there was a time I would have refused the entire plate because I truly abhor mushrooms. I blame watching Matango as an impressionable child.[0]
AI writing is fine in a constrained space.
If you create a strict template, like a PowerPoint deck or tightly formatted report, the LM does a really, really good job. at populating that template with good data.
If you give it an open license to just create stuff, it’s always terrible for the general audience — but it may be fine for you or a small group that is familiar with the subject.
I compare it to fast food. An uneducated teenager is quite capable of putting together a McDonald’s lunch within the constraints of the system. If you let the kid loose in a kitchen designed for trained chefs, the result would not be a good lunch.
>Complaints of AI are like a form of friction that eventually goes away.
This. Already there is evolution in AI-related comments here.
For example, a year ago they often featured remarks like "I know AI when I see it: here are unmistakeable 'tells.'"
Then there would be a lively back-and-forth about the validity of the stated giveaways.
Such "How I know it's AI"-type comments no longer appear.
This has not been my experience. People talk about LLM-isms (Claude-isms especially) all the time. "The absolute shape", "load bearing", "seams", "smoking gun", genuinely empty preambles, constant sloganesque phrasing. If you're seeing it less in conversation, it's not because it's improved.
Sorry your comment got dinged. I assume the reference to age triggered that. Ageism is a very, very real thing, hereabouts.
I think it was insightful and relevant. I am not a “slop enthusiast” (a great term), but I am a longtime student of human nature, and basically agree with the premise.
Like it or not, slop is here to stay. It’s up to us, to guide and shape it into a net benefit.
It is funny to me how slop enthusiasts argue from the past and the future to deny the present state.
"Slop is here to stay so you better get used to it because slop is inevitable and you will be left behind."
It is both already a cemented permanent presence and destined to arrive by an unbreakable prophecy at a date TBD.
If you came away thinking I was enthusing about AI slop, it's probably because I was too subtle in comparing it to a food I abhor while saying there are tidbits, non-slop tidbits, that I could appreciate. Apologies for that human generated mischance!
I'm actually rather bemused to see many young folks, arguing against LLMs and ML, and seeing more experienced folks, embracing it.
I'm pretty experienced, and have found LLMs to be quite useful.
Like any new tool, there are deficits and peculiarities, but these are becoming less of a concern, and the utility of these tools is advancing rapidly.
> In my defense, only the technical parts are AI.
A defense would be "I just used it for spellchecking" not "I just used it for the meat and the important parts people care about, the rest is mine!"
You can’t unslop A.I. prose. Once it’s written, the content is poisoned.
“Sure there was a turd in the punch bowl but I did my best to remove it, so you should be able to drink it.”
Nope.
And the technical parts are what matter, saying you did that with A.I. tells me “I don’t care about this part” so what the heck are we even doing here?
I second this. Unfortunately you just can’t just “unslop” it, much like you can’t just “shake the dirt away” from food that fell into a bucket of… you get my point, it won’t be good to eat anyway. Bonus additional ironic parallel could magically manifest if you can guess the bucket content.
Anyway, it’s a shame, this could have been excellent work. Instead, I find reading it unpleasant and part of my attention rots away wondering if you even checked what the LLM wrote for you. You probably did, and I could also do it myself, but still…
Is this really the top question now?
Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?
Why? "There is gravel in the food" is a perfectly valid contribution. You don't need to write a compelling story about it.
Because the article itself is way more interesting than the question of with what style it was written.
It's like the saying beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes clean to the bone. Bad AI writing makes an article "unreadable" - you'd have to force yourself to read it, and people don't get paid for reading stuff on HN. The HN value of an unpleasant to read article is basically zero.
I really don't want to waste more words on it here.
I think the difference might be that you find bad style easy to ignore and I don't.
If the applied style is painful, can't one just take a lightweight model and have it transcribe the content in a style that one personally finds pleasurable? Even phones should be powerfull enough to chew through such a task locally these days (even across languages), and once you define the criteria for what you enjoy you'll never have to be pained again (unless you enjoy it offcourse)