It’s not always perfect, but it’s good for getting a tldr to see if maybe something is worth reading further. As for translations, it’s something AI is rather decent at. And if I go from understanding 0% to 95%, really only missing some cultural context about why a certain phrase might mean something different from face value, that’s a win.
You can do a lot with AI where the cost of it not being exactly right is essentially zero. Plus, it’s not like humans have a great track record for accuracy, come to think of it. It comes down to being skeptical about it like you would any other source.
At least, the iPhone notifications summaries were bad enough I eventually turned them off (but periodically check them) and while I was working at Google you couldn’t really turn of the genAI summaries of internal things (that evangelists kept adding to things) and I rarely found them useful. Well… they’re useful if the conversation is really bland but then the conversation should usually be in some thread elsewhere, if there was something important I don’t think the genAI systems were very good at highlighting it
Completely agree, those summaries are incredibly bad. I was recently looking for some information in Gemini meeting notes and just couldn’t find it, even though I was sure it had been talked about. Then I read the transcript itself and realised that the artificial unintelligence had simply left out all the most important bits.
The iPhone models are really bad. They aren’t representative of the usefulness of bigger ones, and it’s inexplicably stupid that Apple doesn’t like people pick their own API as an alternative.
You can disagree, but I find it helpful to decide whether I’m going to read a lengthy article or not. Also if AI picks up on a bunch of biased phrasing or any of a dozen other signs of poor journalism, I can go into reading something (if I even bother to at that point) with an eye toward the problems in an article. Sometimes that helps when an article is trying to lead you down a certain path of thinking.
I find I’m better at picking out the facts from the bias if I’m forewarned.
iPhone notification summaries were made with GPT3.5 I believe (maybe even the -turbo version).
It doesn’t use reasoning and so when using very short outputs it can produce wild variations since there are not a lot of previous tokens in order to direct the LLM into the appropriate direction in kv-space and so you’re more at the whims of temperature setting (randomly selecting the next token from a SOFTMAX’d list which was output from the LLM).
You can take those same messages and plug them into a good model and get much higher quality results. But good models are expensive and Apple is, for some reason, going for the budget option.
Not OP, but…
It’s not always perfect, but it’s good for getting a tldr to see if maybe something is worth reading further. As for translations, it’s something AI is rather decent at. And if I go from understanding 0% to 95%, really only missing some cultural context about why a certain phrase might mean something different from face value, that’s a win.
You can do a lot with AI where the cost of it not being exactly right is essentially zero. Plus, it’s not like humans have a great track record for accuracy, come to think of it. It comes down to being skeptical about it like you would any other source.
Strongly disagree with the TLDR thing
At least, the iPhone notifications summaries were bad enough I eventually turned them off (but periodically check them) and while I was working at Google you couldn’t really turn of the genAI summaries of internal things (that evangelists kept adding to things) and I rarely found them useful. Well… they’re useful if the conversation is really bland but then the conversation should usually be in some thread elsewhere, if there was something important I don’t think the genAI systems were very good at highlighting it
Completely agree, those summaries are incredibly bad. I was recently looking for some information in Gemini meeting notes and just couldn’t find it, even though I was sure it had been talked about. Then I read the transcript itself and realised that the artificial unintelligence had simply left out all the most important bits.
The iPhone models are really bad. They aren’t representative of the usefulness of bigger ones, and it’s inexplicably stupid that Apple doesn’t like people pick their own API as an alternative.
You can disagree, but I find it helpful to decide whether I’m going to read a lengthy article or not. Also if AI picks up on a bunch of biased phrasing or any of a dozen other signs of poor journalism, I can go into reading something (if I even bother to at that point) with an eye toward the problems in an article. Sometimes that helps when an article is trying to lead you down a certain path of thinking.
I find I’m better at picking out the facts from the bias if I’m forewarned.
iPhone notification summaries were made with GPT3.5 I believe (maybe even the -turbo version).
It doesn’t use reasoning and so when using very short outputs it can produce wild variations since there are not a lot of previous tokens in order to direct the LLM into the appropriate direction in kv-space and so you’re more at the whims of temperature setting (randomly selecting the next token from a SOFTMAX’d list which was output from the LLM).
You can take those same messages and plug them into a good model and get much higher quality results. But good models are expensive and Apple is, for some reason, going for the budget option.
AFAIK some outputs are made with a really tiny/quantized local LLM too.
And yeah, even that aside, GPT 3.5 is really bad these days. It’s obsolete.