It’s also worth pointing out that a lot of current “art” is produced under similar constraints to AI art - for commercial purposes and with algorithmic feedback. It’s easy for people to think ‘this is just as good as a human’, when they are only comparing it to soulless corporate art in the first place.
No. I’m not talking about enforcement of anti-trust laws as passed by congress. Do some research about Khan’s own theories and you’ll know what I’m talking about.
Choosing not to commission a show on a particular subject, is not censorship.
And Khan is simply wrong in the claim you quoted. In fact it’s absurd. There is no shortage of commentary on both AI, and China. Apple chose not to buy a few shows about these topics from one person - that’s all. The fact that Khan claims this is ‘dangerous’, when you can literally watch any commentary you like including hers on Apple’s platforms shows that she is out of touch with reality.
Your characterization is inaccurate. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single positive thing I’ve said about Apple, unless you are referring to where I implied that Xcode has improved.
I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.
Firstly, while your characterization of Khan is accurate, it’s a huge stretch to call her Apple’s “own” regulator, so yes, I’d say that’s clearly a misrepresentation intended to make what Apple did seem worse than it is - I.e. a lie.
But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show.
However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that.
My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate.
1. Apple didn’t censor anything.
2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything.
3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator.
Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.
So? You made a claim that you had actually seen “lots and lots” of positive discussions, yourself. That’s not just a question with an implied direction. You claim to have seen the evidence with your own eyes. And yet when asked produce it you immediately began protesting that you didn’t have to.
You can’t produce the evidence, because there isn’t any. You made your claim without regard for evidence, because even a trivial search for Apple related material shows an overwhelmingly negative view of Apple here:
1. I’m not the one making the claim without evidence. You are.
2. I see absolutely no reason why the null hypothesis should be that a randomly selected social group would be unbiased about any particular issue by default. If you think about it for any length of time you should see that as implausible on its face.
3. You’ve just made up a weird ’counter hypothesis’ of pro Apple bias of your own and thrown it into the discussion for no apparent reason, while claiming not to be willing to defend it. That seems underhanded.
4. Why not just provide some evidence? I’m even more sure you’re wrong now that you’ve chosen to defend your position using these tactics, since it would be trivial for you to provide a link if you actually do remember such a discussion.