What?! How about providing value so that it is actually worth purchasing a subscription?

Subscription isn't required to use the device.

How much storage does this save?

Apple intelligence is listed as 29 GB in the Storage settings. Which should be the amount of space you get back.

MacOS 27 is also diffrent in that it does still downloads the data for EU users and removes or hides options in menues to dissable functionality. This means users lose the said space when upgrading to 27.

Apple Intelligence is available on macOS in the EU. It's only disabled on iOS/iPadOS.

Interestingly, Siri AI was able to answer this with a reference: Up to 14 GB. https://imgur.com/a/SZGh1ca

That's not a reliable source or reference. Read the disclaimer at the bottom.

> That's not a reliable source or reference. Read the disclaimer at the bottom.

The "Always verify important details. Siri is an Al that may make mistakes." is the new version of "your mileage may vary".

Also, I get a similar message when using Gemini, OpenAI and Claude.

I own a "Standard iPhone" and an M1 Mac; these numbers track.

LLMs are not sources.

Keep tilting at windmills. Wikipedia was also not a source

Your reality is yours, not mine. https://imgur.com/a/3viouLd

I'm not upset, just pointing out TweakTown gave Apple's AI misleading information about Apple's products. You might have 30GB of wasted space on your 128GB drive due to Apple Intelligence features on your Mac (like me).

Apologies, I didn't mean to upset you. Per the title I was talking about the downloaded core model sizes, which are a bit under 8 GB or 14 GB in OS 27 depending on device: https://support.apple.com/en-us/121115

What is the difference betwen this and https://www.noglasshole.com/ ?

wtf is this

the demo video really looks ai generated — several weird artifacts, but what bugs me the most is that at the end the alleged glasses-wearer goes through two men between whom clearly there is no space for a third person.

I have no idea, I saw it linked here and figured it would have been more or less legit. https://www.pcmag.com/news/modders-can-remove-the-recording-...

It is, however, open-source (albeit it looks dead AF) https://github.com/infinitefutureinc/nohole

The live music image in their collage is hilarious: it's blurring the backs of people's heads, and presumably blurs the faces of the band, as how would it know the difference

Eta: and in their demo video there's a person walking by who's face doesn't get blurred lmao. Bang up job, Claude

Agreed.

A non-cohesive angry rant

Then you have other sites/companies that go the opposite way: having functionality that is App-only. As an extreme example: my health insurance provider in Spain (Alan) is app-only. They don’t even have a website one can use. It is maddening for those of us who always prefer desktop over mobile.

What's even more maddening is that I bet their "app" is actually a WebView and provides no native functionality.

Just double checking my understanding: If this is true then only Anthropic will be able to detect if text was generated by one of its models, correct?

Likely yes.

But what prevents someone from using Anthropic own detection system to train a watermark-scrubber?

Seems like this would only catch the most unsophisticated cases.

Most of the people posting unedited LLM content all over the internet are unbelievably lazy.

I don't think so, I think most LLM content is bot generated and amending bots to remove watermarkers would be trivial if the bypass is trivial.

You are just pointing out the very visible single cases. But the mass of low-visible content is much higher and more dangerous (like propaganda bot-farms). If a social media platform adds watermarker checks the bots would implement bypasses ASAP.

Rate limits, presumably.

In mine it is far from 99%. I’d say maybe 50%.