Really? If a company advertises a new red version of their widget and I excitedly upgrade because I love red, but when it comes it's gray just like the old widget, don't I have a case? Surely I don't need to demonstrate that red makes me more productive.
That makes sense when tools are as dumb as static notes and TI-84s.
But in the (hypothetical) limit where AI tools outperform all humans, what does this updated test look like? Are we even testing the humans at that point?
To be clear, the issue this article is talking about is essentially "during a video call the other party can see your eyes moving."
I agree that we should be vigilant when big corps are adding more and more sensors into our lives, but Apple is absolutely not reporting tracked eye-movement data to advertisers, nor do they allow third-party apps to do that.
The technology to reproduce eye movements has been around since motion pictures were invented. I'm sure even a flat video stream of the user's face would leak similar information.
Apple should have been more careful about allowing any eye motion information (including simple video) to flow out of a system where eye movements themselves are used for data input.
> ‘user-spacey’ applications from the OS manufacturer shouldn’t be privileged beyond other applications
I don't think that's an accurate description, either. The SharePlay "Persona" avatar is a system service just like the front-facing camera stream. Any app can opt into using either of them.
> if Apple is providing raw eye tracking streams to app developers
Apple is not doing that. As the article describes, the issue is that your avatar (during a FaceTime call, for example) accurately reproduces your eye movements.
> They're machines which must be used [...] not magic evil talismans
I feel like there's a straw man in there. No one is worried about guns sitting around literally unused, and I don't think anyone cares too much about the used/unused ratio. Obviously the thing people are worried about is how they are used when they are used.
> map, and_then, etc. I think this would be called being "monadic".
Strictly speaking, I think providing "map" just makes it functorial. Monadic would need a flatmap. (In addition to the other functor and monad requirements, of course.)
> Arguing you can't do something because someone will be offended is also not very helpful: you can almost always find some offensive interpretation of anything
You mentioned the sorites paradox earlier. Do you think it could be applied here as well?