It's more of a prompting/design issue. The LLM has been told to summarize the message, not to identify it as a scam or not.
You could actually implement such functionality with current LLMs. Even one small enough to run on a phone.
But you can't implement it well enough to be trustworthy. It will make mistakes, and people will quickly stop trusting it. Even if it was as good as a true human assistant (which it's not), humans still make mistakes. We have a tendency to be forgiving of the mistakes that humans make, but we expecit AI to be near perfect and will judge it far more harshly... Hell, just look at how people are blaming it for summarizing a phishing scam.
This is before you even consider the potential of prompt injection attacks. If you give the LLM the power to delete emails, it will be vulnerable to people sending emails telling it to delete emails. A job applicant might be able to tell apple intelligence to delete all other applications.
I agree with you about other filtering being critical and more appropriate. I understand Apple made a good feature. I don't actually know if it will have a negative side effect. I do think it is a good idea to examine the feature critically due to the scale of Apple and the trust its users place in the company to protect them from harm. I also do not think the title of this article is very reasonable bc it insinuates something sinister.
This isn’t it rewriting the message only the notification. And the feature is disable-able and not on by default from what I found since I had to go look for it to enable it.
This is a good point. The rise of chat gpt means that only the most savvy should use tech
A dispassionate and accurate description of a new feature that reaches millions of users? Not news. The lead singer of Limp Bizkit having an unexpected cameo in a recent movie where he sings an acoustic George Michael cover? That’s news baybee!
We're being told that AIs are basically as smart as humans, that AGI is arriving this year and all our jobs are on the line. The average human assistant would not get this assignment wrong.
It’s clearly as intelligent as an Apple, at least on par with a Granny Smith!
Is your argument that it cannot determine obvious spam - because there are people thatd classify some authentic emails as spam?
If the spam detection model can't, e.g. because doing so would require more context on the user and more capabilities, I don't think a summarization model would be able to help, and you'd need something more like a "personal assistant" model.
That said, I don't think we are too far away from that, but this particular model is not that.
At a very very high level, a spell checker and an editor advising on your target audience's aesthetic preferences and cultural nuances are the same thing; at the level we're talking about here the distinction becomes important.
Imagine asking an editor how to spell "xenomorph" and their feedback is to tell you to rewrite your story in a fantasy setting instead.
Two of those are lies writ large, and I hope that most here understand which two.
I mean, not by anyone worth listening to, tho.
One example, a city manager sent $150k via wire transfer to a foreign account because a phishing email told them to. 1) The city didn't typically pay things by wire transfer 2) The amount was much more than would normally be handled by this person's role alone 3) The process for paying something required an invoice and approvals, an email should never have been enough to trigger this response.
“The average human falls for scam texts” is a funny thing to make up in pursuit of defending software that falls for scam texts. Scammers send out these texts by the thousands because the average human does not fall for scam texts.
Most people are average, which would mean most people that you know have fallen for scam texts if your position were true. Is it true in your social circle that most people you know have fallen for scam texts and given the scammers money?
You need to move from describing the process to reviewing the content. If rewriting makes it harder to see it's a scam when you expected the opposite, here is your surprise
Maybe an AI (or even a simple statistical model) can suggest group chats to suppress notifications for, based on how frequently the user actually reads and engages with them. Maybe the notifications system can be overhauled altogether so that non-DM uses are severely restricted by default (e.g., a news app can only display one notification at a time).
The problem with too many notifications is too many notifications, not the user wishing they had the motivation to read all of them.
My policy is basically: people can contact me, computers can’t.
The only notifications I allow are for apps that are a proxy for human communication: messages, email (with a heavily curated inbox in which I dutifully unsubscribe from everything that’s not something I want), and very little else.
The only time I want a notification is if some human being thought to themself “I need to talk to ninkendo right now, and I want him to be notified”. No automated systems, no mass communications.
I’ve never found any system to be of any help with this other than just disabling notifications for every single thing other than these 2-3 apps. No “focus modes”, no auto-summaries, etc. None of them are as effective as just not having the notifications in the first place.
Apple AI: "Dear John Smith, Prince Abiodum Adosina is me. A significant amount of my overseas saving stands to flow into your bank account. All that is required of you to unlock your portion toward you is to ..."
But yeah, you'd think spam filtering would be more important. I use GMail and I haven't seen a spam message in years, besides when I check my spam folder. Even there, most of the "spam" is false positives.