The AI Daily Brief: Artificial Intelligence News and Analysis - Report: Apple Delays Release of AI Features

Episode Date: July 30, 2024

Bloomberg is reporting that Apple Intelligence will roll out in October, weeks after the launch of iOS18. NLW also discusses a recent op-ed by Sam Altman. Concerned about being spied on? Tired of censored responses? AI Daily Brief listeners receive a 20% discount on Venice Pro. Visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://venice.ai/nlw ⁠⁠⁠and enter the discount code NLWDAILYBRIEF. Learn how to use AI with the world's biggest library of fun and useful tutorials: https://besuper.ai/ Use code 'podcast' for 50% off your first month. The AI Daily Brief helps you understand the most important news and discussions in AI. Subscribe to the podcast version of The AI Daily Brief wherever you listen: https://pod.link/1680633614 Subscribe to the newsletter: https://aidailybrief.beehiiv.com/ Join our Discord: https://bit.ly/aibreakdown

Today on the AI Daily Brief, a discussion of the latest on AI policy. Before that in the headlines, Apple will reportedly miss the iOS 18 launch for rolling out its new AI features. The AI Daily Brief is a daily podcast and video about the most important news and discussions in AI. To join the conversation, follow the Discord link in our show notes. Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief Headlines edition, all the daily AI news you need in around five minutes. When Apple announced their new Apple intelligence features, there were, broadly speaking, two categories of reactions. The second of those reactions was to actually look at what they were doing, to try to judge it on the merits of what it might do for AI adoption,

to figure out how it related to Apple's general approach to this type of new technology. But the first response, and in some ways the bigger one, was much more about the fact that Apple had finally conceded to the need to actually just focus on this area. Wall Street had been getting increasingly antsy, and whereas every other big tech stock was up for the year at the time of that announcement, Apple had basically been flat until WWDC. Now it appears that they may have been trying to rush things a little quickly. Bloomberg reports that Apple's AI features will not be included in the first release of iOS 18. iOS 18 and iPadOS 18 are both planned to release in September. However, Bloomberg sources now say that Apple intelligence will not come out until October. For developers,

it's a different story. This week, iOS 18.1 and iPadOS 18.1 betas will go out, with Apple intelligence reportedly going to be available as part of that for software developers who have that early access. As Bloomberg points out, quote, the strategy is atypical as the company doesn't usually release previews of follow-up updates until around the time the initial version of the new software generation is released publicly. But then again, this seems to be a concession to those competitive market dynamics that we were discussing just a moment ago. Again, Bloomberg writes, in order to ensure a smooth consumer release of its big bet on AI, Apple needs support from developers to help iron out issues and test features on a wider scale. Concerns over the stability of Apple

intelligence features in part led the company to split the features from the initial launch of iOS 18. Right now, it appears that the market isn't overly stressed out about this, with Apple roughly flat if down a little on the day. In other words, it appears that the big test will not be if Apple can get out Apple intelligence right away, but ultimately what it does for iPhone and other device sales. Next up, another strike related to AI. Video game performers become the latest group to go on strike over their concerns around artificial intelligence replacing them. writes AP News, The Strike, which is the second for video game voice actors and motion capture performance under the Screen Actors Guild American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, will begin at 12.01 a.m. on Friday.

The move comes after nearly two years of negotiations with gaming giants, including Activision, Warner Brothers, and Walt Disney Co., over a new interactive media agreement. Basically, it sounds like although the two sides have come closer on issues around wages and job safety, there remains a big split over the regulation of generative AI. The issue doesn't appear to be that the studios are against AI protection, at all, but around who benefits from those protections. One of the negotiators said, the industry has told us point blank that they do not necessarily consider everyone who is rendering movement performance to be a performer that is covered by the collective bargaining agreement.

The spokesperson continued adding that some physical performances are being treated as, quote-unquote, data. It seems like the specific issue is around those who do stunt work or creature performances. Said Andy Norris, who's an actor in one of the union's negotiating committee, the performers who bring their body of work to these games create a whole variety of characters and all of that work must be covered. Their proposal would carve out anything that doesn't look or sound identical to me as I sit here when in truth on any given week, I am a zombie, I am a zombie soldier.

We cannot and will not accept that a stunt or movement performer giving a full performance on stage next to a voice actor isn't a performer. One of the things that I frequently said before and I continue to believe is that the rise of AI will significantly strengthen the labor movement again in the U.S. and probably around the world. Although whether this collective action actually works remains to be seen. Next up, some acrimony around training approaches. The first comes from Twitter, where one user, EasyBaked Oven, tweeted, Twitter just activated a setting by default for everyone that gives them the right to use your data to train GROC. Now, what was surprising to people was that they rolled out this feature so quietly.

People have largely speculated that, in fact, one of Elon's main motivations for buying Twitter was the ability to use its data to train AI, and so the move isn't surprising. It's more the fact that to some, this is being done in what they consider a shady way. That wasn't the only AI controversy on X this week, where a parody video created using AI that mimicked likely Democrat nominee Kamala Harris's voice caused a whole slew of concern around AI in elections. On the one side, you have those who say this should be illegal, and on the other side there are those that say this was clearly marked as a parody, and then in fact, people getting used to these types of parodies might actually minimize how much they believe AI-related disinformation

in the future. Anthropic also got dinged for data collection practices, with the Financial Times reporting that Matt Barry, the CEO of freelancer.com, had accused Anthropic of being, quote, the most aggressive scraper by far. According to Barry, freelancer.com received 3.5 million visits from an Anthropic linked web crawler in the space of four hours. Barry said, we had to block them because they don't obey the rules of the internet. This is egregious scraping, which makes the site slower for everyone operating on it and ultimately affects our revenue. Anthropics said that it was investigating the case, that it respected publishers' request and that it aimed to not be, quote, intrusive or disruptive. Once again, data training practices will end up in front of the Supreme Court. There is just

no way for that not to happen. Finally, today, on a positive note, Virginia Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton was last year diagnosed with progressive supernuclear palsy, which makes it very difficult for her to speak. She has since used AI to create a clone of her own voice, which she recently used to address Congress. My battle with progressive supernuclear palsy, or PSP, has robbed me of my ability to use my full voice and move around in the ways that I used to. I can no longer give the same kind of impassioned, impromptu speeches during debates on the floor or in committee hearings. This very impressive AI recreation of my voice does the public speaking for me now. I hope I can be a voice, even an AI voice, for Americans facing accessibility challenges and other disabilities, because too often

people only see us for that disability. And in truth, we are so much more. That's going to do it for today's AI headlines. Next up, the main episode. Today's episode is brought to you by Super Intelligent. As you guys know, Super Intelligent is a platform we are building to help everyone, individuals and teams, maximize their use of AI. We help you figure out how to use AI tools, as well as what to use AI for. And this is really important. The whole goal of Superintelligent is not just to give you tutorials and lessons, but to show you how other people like you are actually getting value from AI right now. For those of you who are still out there working, learning, and grinding deep in the summer,

I'm excited to share our best offer ever. If you sign up with code Year 50 right now, you will get 50% off the already reduced annual price. That means you'll get access to super intelligent for a full year for less than $100. Again, that code is Year 50 for 50% off the already reduced annual fee. The Year 50 code will expire at the end of July. lie. So if you are interested in this, head on over to besupert.a.I. And can't wait to see you on the platform. Today's episode is brought to you by Venice. The leading AI companies store your entire conversation history and attach it to your identity forever. That's every question you

ask, every answer you receive, every image you generate, every thought you share with the machine it's all being spied on. If you trust all the companies, hackers and NSA board members that will ever have access to your AI conversations, then rejoice, for you are well served. For the rest of us, Venice is an alternative. Venice is a powerful AI app for text, image, and code generation that respects you as a sovereign individual and believes privacy and free speech are not only human rights, but necessary for civilizational advancement. Private, permissionless, and uncensored, you can try it for free without an account. AIA Daily Brief listeners receive a 20% discount on Venice Pro. Visit venice.aI. slash NLW.W. Daily Brief. That's NLW Daily Brief. All one word.

Welcome back to the AI Daily Brief. Today we're doing an update on U.S. government policy vis-a-a-I, and we're going to look at it from a couple different angles. First of all, last week, the White House announced some new voluntary commitments around their AI actions, and we also had some administration officials show up in Silicon Valley, but where we're going to kick it off is within op-ed that was published in the Washington Post at the end of last week by none other than Sam Altman. Taking a small page from our long-reads-type episodes in the weekend, we're going to kick this episode off with a quick reading of this piece,

Who Will Control the Future of AI? Subtitle, A Democratic Vision for Artificial Intelligence must prevail over an authoritarian one. So we'll talk about that and then weave in the other news to it as well. Altman begins, Who will control the future of AI? That is the urgent question of our time. The rapid progress being made on artificial intelligence means that we face a strategic choice about what kind of world we are going to live in. Will it be one in which the United States and allied nations advance a global AI

that spreads the technology's benefits and opens access to it? it, or an authoritarian one, in which nations and movements that don't share our values use AI to cement and expand their power. There is no third option, and it's time to decide which path to take. The United States currently has a lead in AI development, but continued leadership is far from guaranteed. Authoritarian governments the world over are willing to spend enormous amounts of money to catch up and ultimately overtake us. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has darkly warned that the country that wins the AI race will become the ruler of the world, his quote, and the People's Republic of China has said that it aims to become the global leader in AI by 2030.

These authoritarian regimes and movements will keep a close hold on the technology's scientific, health, educational, and other societal benefits to cement their own power. If they manage to take the lead on AI, they will force US companies and those of other nations to share user data, leveraging the technology to develop new ways of spying on their own citizens, or creating next generation cyberweapons to use against other countries. The first chapter of AI is already written. Systems such as chat GPT, co-pilot, and others are functioning as limited assistance. For instance, by writing up patient visits so nurses and doctors can spend more time with the sick,

or serving as more advanced assistance in certain domains, such as cogeneration for software engineering. More advances will soon follow and will usher in a decisive period in the story of human society. If we want to ensure that the future of AI is a future built to benefit the most people possible, we need a U.S.-led global coalition of like-minded countries and an innovative new strategy to make it happen. The United States public and technology sectors need to get four big things right to ensure the creation of a world shaped by a democratic vision for AI. First, American AI firms and industry need to craft robust security measures to ensure that our coalition maintains the lead in current and future models and enables our private sector to innovate.

These measures would include cyber defense and data center security innovations to prevent hackers from stealing key intellectual properties such as model weights and AI training data. Many of these defenses will benefit from the power of artificial intelligence, which makes it easier and faster for human analysis to identify risks and respond to attacks. The U.S. government and the private sector can partner together to develop these security measures as quickly as possible. Second, infrastructure is destiny when it comes to AI. The early installation of fiber optic cables, coaxial lines, and other than that,

other pieces of broadband infrastructure is what allowed the United States to spend decades at the center of the digital revolution and to build its current lead in AI. U.S. policymakers must work with the private sector to build significantly larger quantities of the physical infrastructure, from data centers to power plants that run the AI systems themselves. Public-private partnerships to build this needed infrastructure will equip U.S. firms with the computing power to expand access to AI and better distribute its societal benefits. Building this infrastructure will also create new jobs nationwide. We are witnessing the birth and evolution of a technology I believe to be as momentous as electricity or the internet. AI can be the foundation of a new industrial base. It would be wise

for our country to embrace. We need to complement the proverbial bricks and mortar with substantial investments in human capital. As a nation, we need to nurture and develop the next generation of AI innovators, researchers, and engineers. They are our true superpower. Third, we must develop a coherent commercial diplomacy policy for AI, including clarity around how the United States intends to implement export controls and foreign investment rules for the global buildout of AI systems. That will also mean setting out rules of the road for what sort of chips, AI training data and other code, some of which is so sensitive that it may need to remain in the United States, can be housed in the data centers that countries around the world are racing

to build to localize AI information. Our existing AI lead at a time when nations worldwide are vying for greater access to the technology will make it easier to bring more countries into this new coalition. Making sure open source models are readily available to developers in those nations will further bolster our advantage. The challenge of who will lead on AI is not just about exporting technology, it's about exporting the values that the technology upholds. And fourth, we need to think creatively about new models for the world to establish norms in developing and deploying AI, with a particular focus on safety and ensuring a role for the global South and other nations who have historically been left behind. As with other issues of global importance, this will

require us to engage with China and maintain an ongoing dialogue. I've spoken in the past about creating something akin to the International Atomic Energy Agency for AI, but that is just one potential model. One option could knit together the network of AI Safety Institutes being built in countries such as Japan and Britain and create an investment fund that countries committed to abiding by Democratic AI protocols could draw from to expand their domestic computer capacities. Another potential model is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which was established by the U.S. government in 1998, less than a decade after the creation of the World Wide Web, to standardize how we navigate the digital world. ICANN is now an independent nonprofit with

representatives from around the world, dedicated to its core mission of maximizing access to the Internet in support of an open, connected, democratic global community. While identifying the right decision-making body is important, the bottom line is that Democratic AI has a lead over authoritarian AI because our political system has empowered U.S. companies, entrepreneurs, and academics to research, innovate, and build. We won't be able to have AI that is built to maximize the technology's benefits while minimizing its risks, unless we work to make sure the Democratic vision for AI prevails. If we want a more democratic world, history tells us our only choices to develop an AI strategy that will help create it, and that the nations and technologists who

have a lead have a responsibility to make that choice now. All right, back to NLW analysis. here. And by the way, that was me, that was not AI. I always tell you guys if I'm going to be reading with AI. So a couple things that are interesting about this. First of all, I think there are some parts of this that are non-controversial. I think pretty much everyone in the AI space would love to see a greater investment from the United States in the actual infrastructure for building out more advanced AI. A second thing that some have noted is that this strikes a fairly urgent tone. There's a lot of nows and musts in this piece. And clearly given that it's in the Washington Post, it is focused squarely on the Beltway elite.

Now, where it gets into big thorny questions is around these questions of open source, I think. The entire story of last week, all the big news from Mistral and, of course, even more, Metaslama release was all about the advances in open source and how it had largely closed the gap with closed source models. One of the great skepticism people have when Altman or others from Open AI advocate for non-open models or for controls on what people can and can't share, is that it seems to them like an attempt at regulatory capture. Now, that conversation, however, has been stuck at that level of discourse for more than a year now, and I think would highly benefit from more nuance and specificity

around at what point people believe AI is too powerful to fully open source. Is it now? Are we disagreeing around whether meta could safely release everything it has around Lama 3.1? Is it some future state? Does it have to do with agents? Reasonable people can disagree on where they draw these lines, but unless we're talking about where we actually draw those lines, there's nothing to actually debate here. It's just all theoretical. Now, this conversation is picking up. Lena Khan at the FTC is one of Big Tech's big antagonists. Interestingly, then, was Khan showing up at Y Combinator, basically to discuss what Mark

Andresen and Ben Horowitz have recently dubbed Little Tech. Wired writes, last Thursday, Y Combinator hosted a melange of founders, venture capitalists, and U.S. policymakers to tackle a defining topic for so many startups today. AI is the latest frontier in the battle between big tech and the little guys. The piece continues, Lena Khan, the chairperson at the Federal Trade Commission was one of the most prominent advocates for open source AI at the event. Speaking to a crowd of approximately 200 entrepreneurs, Khan said it's not an exaggeration to suggest that nearly all of why Combinator's most successful companies wouldn't exist without open source software in the community behind it. The FTC has been focused on defining and exploring open weights AI

models, which are slightly less open than fully open source AI models. With open weights models available to them, quote, smaller players can bring their ideas to market, Khan suggested. Khan also clearly articulated the stakes for this particular crowd. Conditions have allowed the biggest companies to get a leg up in the AI race. If you control the raw materials, you can control the market and shut out smaller companies who don't have the infrastructure to compete. Now, there is a lot to debate here, a lot more than we can get into in the context of this episode. One of the questions, for example, that Khan's perspective brings up, especially when compared with Altman's essay, is will creating restrictions on the big companies in the name of allowing smaller companies to

compete actually net slow down advances towards the frontier of AI in a way that harms competitiveness with other global powers. There are also economic questions. One of the big issues in venture capital right now is that the pipeline from startup funding, certainly to IPO, but even right at this moment to exit via acquisition, feels more closed than it has in a long time. And that's going to come back to where and how startups raise money. But at least the debate is being had and at least Khan is engaging directly with Silicon Valley. That's something that we haven't seen as much of over the last four years. And as someone who thinks in general that more rather than less engagement, almost always produces better outcomes, I think it's a good thing. One of the things we've noted this year

is that the conversation around AI policy in D.C. seems to have quieted down a bit. Now, it feels like that's mostly about election season and the general quiet down and everything related to policy. But it's not like there's nothing happening at all. On Friday, the White House announced that Apple had become the latest signatory of the voluntary commitments that they had set up with the AI industry. They also said that federal agencies reported that they completed all of the 270-day actions in their executive order on schedule, following their on-time completion of every other task required to date. Now, to be clear, a lot of those 270-day goals are still intermediary,

but it does show that behind the scenes, some amount of at least self-defined progress is happening. Now, it does make sense that Apple has signed on as they get prepared to release Apple intelligence, although, as we heard in the headlines, that release is coming a little bit later than we had hoped. Apple didn't appear to really say anything else about the commitment, and so perhaps it's fairly pro forma. So anyways, that is the story for today.

Some important conversations that have been on a fairly low hum recently, starting to pick up a little bit more traction. I will, of course, keep you posted as that conversation involves, and I appreciate you listening or watching as always. Until next time, peace.