It performs well on Mandarin audio transcription, considering it's an European company. It's weird though that it keeps adding spaces between single Chinese characters, and mixing traditional & simplified characters.
At least it's better than sending peasants into the mountains and building solar panels on the flat field that has been growing crops for thousands of years.
US-designed iPhones have at least 2 cameras, some microphones, and biometric sensors. From this point, everyone outside the US should stop using iPhones to prevent surveillance from the American empire.
From another angle, the iPhones are primarily made in China AND India via third-party factories, so no one should ever use iPhones any more.
You have the right to concern about privacy, but that's not how it works.
It is, because Apple's privacy stance and record are known. What do we know about this Chinese company, besides the fact that it is beholden to a government that does not care for privacy?
Apple's record is complying with a majority of government requests for customer data.
Not to mention its CEO manufacturing and gifting on bended knee a custom 24-karat gold Apple plaque to a federal government leader that does not care for privacy or foreign customers. That sent the message internationally, loud and clear.
Apple's policy is to submit to nearly all requests made by the federal government, though they get substantial credit for resisting some requests. This of course depends on the decisions made by current leadership, which can and will change (while the phone in your pocket remains the same).
The problem is that not all governments constrain themselves to only use requests and/or allow companies to challenge said requests. And that's at least what you get dealing with Apple and the USA (most of the time).
Let's put aside whether you can trust apple for a moment.
Where the hardware comes from is much less of a risk than the fact than where the locked down firmware and software comes from.
Yes the west's over-dependence on Chinese hardware is a liability, but what's easier? Compromising hardware or compromising software? If you don't know, I'll tell you, it's the latter.
There are tens of much more successful robot vacuum companies. You do not buy roomba because of their capability in making robot vacuums, that already drove them bankrupt. If all you wanted was the brand name, you could have bought just that. The valuable asset here is the large number of products in people's homes which can now be monetized.
Which is why the parent said "for anyone outside the US". Of course for anyone in the US, at least Apple is a US company. But that only works for people in the US :-).
Not the OP, but I understood it as "anyway we're screwed, and if you're okay with the company in question being in your country, Apple is okay only for people in the US".
Human always have thoughts, ideas, and experiences. Writing them down is already a cool thing. If AI has those too, then it should start its own blog :)
Sure they do. Even-handedness is not some uniquely American value. And anyway they recognize that their current analysis has a US-specific slant; it's still a good place to start, especially as so much of the world follows US culture and politics.
It's probably the case that Anthropic's staff has political biases, but that doesn't mean they can't aim for neutrality and professionalism. Honestly my opinion of Anthropic has gone up a lot from reading this blog post (and it was already pretty high). Claude 1 was wild in terms of political bias, but it got so much better and this effort is absolutely the right way to go. It's very encouraging that the big model companies are making these kinds of efforts. I believe OpenAI already did one, or at least publicly talked about the importance of even handedness in public already.
Years ago I worked for Google and left partly because I saw the writing on the wall for its previous culture of political neutrality, which I valued more than any 20% time or free lunch. Over the next ten years Google became heavily manipulated by the left to brainwash its users, first internally, then in periphery products like News, then finally in core web search. It is by far the most distressing thing they've done. I worried for a long time that AI companies would be the same, but it does seem like they recognize the dangers of that. It's not just about their users, it's about employees being able to get along too. Apparently Googlers are trying to cancel Noam Shazeer right now for not being left wing enough, so the risks of political bias to maintaining the skill base are very real.
I think the most interesting question is where the market demand is. Musk is trying to train Grok to prioritize "truth" as an abstract goal, whereas the other companies are trying to maximize social acceptability. The latter feels like a much more commercially viable strategy, but I can see there being a high end market for truth-trained LLMs in places like finance where being right is more important than being popular. The model branding strategies might be limiting here, can one brand name cover models trained for very different personalities?
