Tell me it’s a silly opinion, but I don’t care about arbitrary stock news and I think they don’t belong in a place like c/technology. Even when it’s about the two biggest tech giants. I would like to discuss Apple’s AI if they ever have anything to show for it but until then it’s just hot air like their emission pledges.
100%. I subscribe here to learn about new advancements—to learn about technology.
The finances and politics of the tech industry have a home in those respective communities.
Idk if I should block this user or the word CNBC.com to clean up this trash. Thoughts?
And this is why the stock market, net worth and market cap are so stupid. Apple haven’t released anything yet, even microsoft haven’t really had an idea what AI is actually useful for, apart from their blatant spyware, but apple just go on stage, say “AI” a bunch of times and are the worlds most valuable company once more.
Sweet, so homelessness and hunger are eradicated?
I would assume? Because, what’s the point of . . .
The AI will take care of it.
No humans, no hunger.
Waitaminit . . . Statue of Liberty . . . gasp
That was OUR planet!! You blew it up!! You maniacs!!
DAMN YOOOUUUUU! Damn you all to hell!!
So when Microsoft says it’ll constantly screen shot your windows machine and then use AI on those screen shots, we all lose our collective minds, but when Apple unveils their system that’s fucking OS wide apparently, where the AI can literally see and interact with EVERYTHING, suddenly it’s worth celebrating?
Like don’t get me wrong, both are horrible, but what’s up with the double standard? It’s like apple can do no wrong, despite the fact that they’ve been doing nothing but wrong for almost a decade now.
In fairness, at least Apple isn’t bone-headed enough to take screenshots of your entire system every few seconds then store them unencrypted for any app that wants to access it to trivially do so.
Maybe I missed it, but they don’t seem to have constant recording at all?
Even if it runs locally (which I doubt, altho they are asking to be verified by third parties for security, so we’ll see, sounds promising so far), it’s still a tool that has the authority to do literally anything from a prompt. Once the device is unlocked, it’s literally unlocked, as in every piece of information about the owner is now at your finger tips.
Cult stuff
I’m so sick of this non news. It’s just imaginary value too.
If this isn’t enough prove that wall street is just a giant gambling casino for the rich to speculate, nothing will be
Show me the Money
Shouldn’t it be ‘wealthiest’ and not ‘most valuable’? Ever wondered bout this terms and possible incorrect use of words.
Value is correct in this instance, I think.
The number of shares and the price people are willing to pay for those shares is how “value” is calculated, I think.
In contrast, “wealth” would be how much money they have in the bank.
No, “most valuable” is accurate here, since we’re talking about its market cap (value of all shares combined essentially). “Wealthiest” would refer to the company’s total assets.
Ah, thanks. Thought the value of shares is a believing thing only, so no real ‘asset’.
The market cap is the number of share multiplied by the current share price. So this is a made up number because the reality is that not all these share would sell at the current share value.
Essentially, Apple Market Cap raised because people bought shares at a higher price after the announcements.
Well yes and no. Market cap is the total value of all shares for the particular stock combined (not including those held by the company itself). The value of each individual share is determined on the market. No-one directly “owns” this value, since the whole point of stocks is to distribute ownership, so no-one including Apple as an entity “owns” their market cap entirely. If that were the case, there would be no trading, and ergo no value to the shares, and the entire idea of a market cap no longer applies.
Individually though, the value of shares is of course very real. If you own shares and the stock is liquid (as in: there are people willing to buy), you can sell those shares for real money whenever you wish, at the current market price. Unless you want to sell a substantial amount, in which case you may run into trouble finding buyers and / or create significant downward pressure on the price.
Thanks again.
Tim Cook face looks like he is enjoying a penetration
So what if he is?
Good for him
I’m not sure that’s an enjoying it face.
I wouldn’t say valuable. Highest stocks maybe?
Pic is super creepy
Alternatively: MSs AI plans and the negative reaction to them has reduced their value cf Apple
Ridiculous market value news aside, I thought their AI thing was pretty underwhelming.
Nothing it does is anything we haven’t seen before. And if Siri is any indication, it won’t be all that useful in the real world.
The problem I see with AI is that it seemingly takes just as long to figure out how to ask the AI what you want as it takes going into the app and just reading an email or writing a message. And then when it summarizes, how can you really trust that it hasn’t misconstrued something that you could have caught by reading it?
you’ve not seen the type of email chains i get at work. personally i think it should be illegal to respond-all to an email chain with hundreds of people with “Great job team!!! 🎉”. but it would be great to have a LM to read it near instantaneously for me to be like “oh yeah there was a product release and here’s a few relevant metrics”. doesn’t matter if it’s 100% in on every subtle detail, and a decent summary could tell me where or if i even should dig into details.
I could see that. AI seems like an expensive solution to just getting people to stop clicking “reply all” though.
Kinda crazy that the easier solution may not be changing people’s behavior, but creating an entire system capable of reading and understanding text.
not sure what you mean by expensive. i run language models on my laptop that are pretty good at this type of task. and, yes, these models are infinitely easier and cheaper ultimately than trying to change the human proclivity for attention seeking behavior.
