1·2 years agoApple claimed that their privacy could be independently audited and verified.
How? The only way to truly be able to do that to a 100% verifiable degree is if it were open source, and I highly doubt Apple would do that, especially considering it’s OS level integration. At best, they’d probably only have a self-report mechanism which would also likely be proprietary and therefore not verifiable in itself.
- Malicious actors could potentially exploit vulnerabilities in the AI system to gain unauthorized access or control over device functions and data, potentially leading to severe privacy breaches, unauthorized data access, or even the ability to inject malicious content or commands through the AI system.
- Privacy breaches are possible if the AI system is compromised, exposing user data, activities, and conversations processed by the AI.
- Integrating AI functionality deeply into the operating system increases the overall attack surface, providing more potential entry points for malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities and gain unauthorized access or control.
- Human reviewers have access to annotate and process user conversations for improving the AI models. To effectively train and improve the AI models powering the OS-level integration, Apple would likely need to collect and process user data, such as text inputs, conversations, and interactions with the AI.
- Apple’s privacy policy states that the company collects data necessary to provide and improve its products and services. The OS-level AI would fall under this category, allowing Apple to collect data processed by the AI for improving its functionality and models.
- Despite privacy claims, Apple has a history of collecting various types of user data, including device usage, location, health data, and more, as outlined in their privacy policies.
- If Apple partners with third-party AI providers, there is a possibility of user data being shared or accessed by those entities, as permitted by Apple’s privacy policy.
- With the AI system operating at the OS level, it likely has access to a wide range of user data, including text inputs, conversations, and potentially other sensitive information. This raises privacy concerns about how this data is handled, stored, and potentially shared or accessed by the AI provider or other parties.
- Lack of transparency for users about when and how their data is being processed by the AI system & users not being fully informed about data collection related to the AI. Additionally, if the AI integration is controlled solely at the OS level, users may have limited control over enabling or disabling this functionality.
you can use it in almost any app
if done rightHow are you going to be able to use it in “almost any app” in a way that is secure? How are you going to design it so that the apps don’t abuse the AI to get more information on the user out of it than intended? Seems pretty damn inherently insecure to me.
Oh yeah? Then explain this!! /s
“Simple by default, powerful when needed” - KDE
That’s the way Vaxry spun it to try making them look bad while he downplays his own behavior and malpractice. Basically he just lied and spread misinformation, he really needs to get his act together if he ever wants to work with them again.
01·2 years agoIt’s FOSS, just don’t donate to the project or promote it and keep using it anyway. That’s the beauty of FOSS, the devs dumb opinions shouldn’t effect your personal use of quality tools. Imagine if you stopped using hammers just because “communism”, it’d be a pretty stupid self inflicted inconvenience.
If the project itself goes to shit and he starts using it to push his stupid agenda, then abandon it. But until then it’s completely understandable to keep using it for your personal workflow. Everyone uses GNU utilits, that doesn’t mean we agree with everything Richard Stallmen has ever said.
Hopefully Vaxry will learn and clean up his act.
That’s not what’s happening here. They are barring him from participating in their project, he can still say whatever the fuck he wants on his own project. They just don’t want to work with him.
If you walk into a job interview and they find your tweets of you saying the nword over and over, and you don’t get the job, that’s a you problem. Nobody wants to work with people who’ll bring negative PR.
1·2 years agoXMR is the only crypto worth shit.
11·2 years agoThe younger generations e.g. millennials & zoomers have higher rates of porn addiction and sex related crimes. The problem is very much real.
Ofc, there’s other factors that exacerbate this, like not having a father figure, poverty, social media, etc.
So obviously, there’s other ways to go about reducing it.
Java aplications and old applications must use a backwards compatibility layer that can cause flicker and bad font rendering.
There have been efforts to provide better support for Java applications on the Wayland. For instance, the OpenJDK project has been making progress on implementing native “pure” Wayland toolkit integration not dependent upon XOrg/X11 or XWayland.
but not all toolkits support it natively and few are easy.
There have been significant developments in providing native support for Wayland in various toolkits. For example : Clutter, GLFW 3, SDL, GTK 3.20+, QT5+, EFL, Slint, Iced & OpenJDK. Just to name a few.
While it is true that not all toolkits have full native support, ongoing work is/has largely shifted towards much better Wayland support.
Wayland is a communication protocol that specifies the communication between a display server and its clients, designed to be a replacement for the X11 window system protocol and architecture.
I might be a little nitpicky here, but I feel it’s an important distinction to make as there is no single common Wayland server like Xorg is for X11.
A display server using the Wayland protocol is called a Wayland compositor, as it additionally performs the task of a compositing window manager.
Xorg on the other hand is basically one fat display server designed like a house of cards that everyone uses.
Kernel v6.6.6 , I know it’s hard to see.
1·2 years agoIf you have bugs that the vast majority don’t have, then why don’t you… let’s say… go report them instead of complaining on some random forum so they can can actually get patched…
The devs can’t patch a bug only a handful of people experience if those said people don’t submit proper bug reports.
Do you have video of this? Would appreciate it if you shared it, if you do.
Prolly would go viral if you posted it here actually.
Just so I don’t have to repeat myself 1000 times.
https://lemmy.world/comment/6016698
https://lemmy.world/comment/6013450
https://lemmy.world/comment/6014060
https://lemmy.world/comment/6020626
That should cover most if not all of your arguments.but instead a massive game with up to 290 million monthly active users
total* across all platforms, not exclusively desktop.
Also, what XyliaSky@sh.itjust.works said.
It is also pretty clear that valve will not help Epic make fornite more compatible on their platform, as they are a direct competitor.
Wrong, Proton is open source and Valve would still benefit if Fortnite succeeded on Linux as it’d grow the ecosystem they’re investenting in. Valve has said themselves they’re open to supporting any game that takes advantage of Proton, including competitors. Unlike Epic, they’re not trying to monopolize the entire market. If they were, they’d be trying to make deals with Microsoft to come pre-installed or some other invasive shit like that.
Hell, Valve already dead ass worked directly with Epic Games to add Proton support to EAC & EAC support in Proton(proton_eac_runtime) in the first place. Why the hell wouldn’t Valve be obligated to support them?because when shit doesn’t work, the blame goes to them and not the layer. And that’s bad PR.
All they have to do is say “running under Valve Proton report bugs here↗” similar to what Steam does, problem solved.
Not to mention, Linux users are 1000× better at making actually useful bug reports.
Their keynotes are irrelevant, their official privacy policies and legal disclosures take precedence over marketing claims or statements made in keynotes or presentations. Apple’s privacy policy states that the company collects data necessary to provide and improve its products and services. The OS-level AI would fall under this category, allowing Apple to collect data processed by the AI for improving its functionality and models. Apple’s keynotes and marketing materials do not carry legal weight when it comes to their data practices. With the AI system operating at the OS level, it likely has access to a wide range of user data, including text inputs, conversations, and potentially other sensitive information.