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-...
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.
[flagged]
It's already technically possible for LLMs to generate all kinds of styles of text. In fact older models are better at it. It's the newer models that are nearly impossible to steer. This makes me less hopeful for the future. There is apparently some incentive for Claude and ChatGPT to lock in these very recognizable patterns.
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.
"It's not X, it's Y" is still the most obvious one. Abuse of passive voice is another. We stopped talking about it because it gets boring to say the same things over and over.
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.
Genius-level response. And honestly, that's valid.
[flagged]
I’m sorry you feel defeated, but such attitudes won’t help.
Help what?
Help improve or restore the quality of content.
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.
[dead]
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.
We get it. You are saying that in the future there will only be mushrooms to eat and as a result everyone will enjoy mushrooms.
Now think about how much you hate mushrooms.
Do you see the problem with your argument?
> 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!"
Yes, that was a weird defense; essentially, he used it for the actual interesting parts of the article.
So most of it?
So only the parts that matter, you ai slopped. Great work.
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?
Interesting for me it's the opposite. I care about this so I let AI do it since LLM are better writers than the majority of people. I'm not so arrogant to think I'm a writer of that caliber.
You are. I promise you. Almost every single person is a better writer than an LLM. You're wilfully sabotaging yourself.
LLM are terrible writers though. Worse than most humans unless they have some mental disability.
I disagree. Hand-authored articles can be slop too. This research is great, and your subjective feelings about word cadence don't affect the information. I guarantee you read AI output every day and don't know it.
Hand-authored engagement or clout (LinkedIn) farming articles and corporate press releases are usually slop, most others aren't. I'd be surprised if corporate press releases today weren't largely AI-written - no one would know the difference.
The criticism can be restated, then, as “you used AI to write it, and unlike others who use AI to write things, you did a bad job directing it and editing the work.”
This comment is not directed at you, but this is the best place I could find to insert my thoughts on this "nO LLm slOP" distraction:
----
The research is jaw-dropping enough for the average reader to comprehend (e.g: I am not a techie, but a former IBEW datacenter wiretwister).
It could be covered in pube-sprinkled-turds and would still be worth reading.
To me the "slopLOL" crew is akin to people who'll take their time to correct others' their/they're/there usage:
Just read the fucking sentence (LLMs can and do and aren't so poopy-you-suck-for-being-human).
We know there’s interesting information in there. That’s not the point.
How news is delivered matters. If you don’t believe that, why would news outlets compete with each other? Even if the facts are the same, would you prefer to get them from a good or bad writer?
>would you prefer to get them from a good or bad writer?
I am smart enough to not need perfection. I just want the data. Write however tf you want, good'll'be read.
And so will LLMs.
I'll suggest adaptation.
>why would news outlets compete with each other?
Competition for the masses' con$umption$?
It seems to generally work; shouldn't have to obfuscate the `man` pages for this always-running daemon... how many people even know what `man`pages are (obviously not here)? how to access them? why they would even want to?
Well, good for you for not caring, I suppose. The vast majority of society does.
> I am smart enough
Knock yourself down a peg, kid.
I will, sure, but I've been writing about this for almost a decade; and I know more than most people about this topic, despite being a bluecollar electrician.
Also, my IQ scares even me; I've chosen bluecollar so I don't have to be evil as much with it.
----
Companies do not give two shits about most users, with (e.g:) AMD saying the quiet part out loud, recently, with their recent gamers-last announcement.
Also see: Apple's invasive attempts to categorize all local data, by default; if you want to opt-out (some service, like OP's, you cannot!), it takes dozens of clicks for each new software – intentional dark-patterns to make opting-out cat-and-mouse.
----
>Well, good for you for not caring, I suppose.
I care too much, is the problem (at least from my POV). Companies are soulless, and only care for shareholder value (legal requirement).
Data is the new_oil is the new_steel is the new_tin is the...
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…
[flagged]
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)
The criteria I enjoy is "written by a human".
You can pay someone to rewrite it. There's loads of college students who wouldn't mind extra spending money.
You don't have to leave a comment if you are too lazy to read it. It's not even if the words were written mirrored. Anyone who can read English including children can read the output of AI without needing to force anything. Maybe you need to see a doctor if you need to force yourself to read it.
"How dare you have a preference that is not my preference?"
Its interestingness is zero if it’s so aggravating to read that you just give up.
> Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?
No.
I agree. One comment constructive is enough. It feels like some guys pushing the topic away.
It annoys me as it takes my attention with them so with all respect: user aharmetz (and others) please keep it in one post that you’d prefer non-AI text. Point.
Thank you.
I’d rather this over the very long tradition in this site if people bellyaching about site design and layout on otherwise u related comment threads
> Can we add a rule that if you blame someone for using AI, you _also_ have to bring something interesting to the table?
Criticism is a valid 'something interesting'. And growing numbers of us also don't want to feed the US mega-companies LLM training sets.
More and more people are keeping human-generated stuff to themselves, cause of that.
There was a very obvious and unnerving shift in style that happened early in the article where it went from human to LLM. I find such shifts really glaring. Agents, in their current state, simply cannot produce quality prose and are not good enough to write blog posts targeting a human audience.
I found the topic fascinating, but eventually I started skimming and then gave up on it.
It says there's 137 live/certain facts in my graph. I can see where they're sourced from/a statistical breakdown of type/the number of unique confidence values/how many citations they're using/how many ingests contributed no facts. Am I missing where I can see what the actual facts are?
A lot of these statistics aren't very useful for mining insights from the graph, from a technical standpoint of how the graph works or from a personal standpoint of how the graph is interacting with my personal data.
Thanks for the research. Have you looked into how to secure / disable the subsystem?
(I hate that a discussion on the OP has been hijacked by a discussion on AI writing; the substantive questions are all at the bottom. I wish mods would 'detatch and move' the AI subthread.)
You wrote that other apps can't access it because of TCC Full Disk Access. Presumably the OS itself can read it, so do you have any information on whether parts of the graph (or fingerprints, or inferences made with it) are ever sent to the cloud/apple servers?