Apple mulls using OpenAI or Anthropic to power Siri in big reversal: report
The iPhone maker has had discussions with both companies about using their large language models for Siri, asking them to train versions of their LLMs that could run on Apple's cloud infrastructure for testing, the report said, citing people familiar with the discussions.
Apple in March said AI improvements to its voice assistant Siri will be delayed until 2026.
ZUMAPRESS.com
Advertisement
Apple's investigation into third-party models is at an early stage and the company has not made a final decision on using them, the report said.
Amazon-backed Anthropic declined to comment, while Apple and OpenAI did not respond to Reuters requests.
The company had in March said AI improvements to its voice assistant Siri will be delayed until 2026, without giving a reason for the setback.
Advertisement
Apple shook up its executive ranks to get its AI efforts back on track after months of delays, resulting in Mike Rockwell taking charge of Siri, as CEO Tim Cook lost confidence in AI head John Giannandrea's ability to execute on product development, Bloomberg had reported in March.
Apple has had discussions with ChatGPT owner OpenAI and Anthropic about using their large language models for Siri.
AP
Amid intense competition among major tech firms to dominate the burgeoning generative AI sector, Apple has been partnering with established AI companies and integrating a host of on-device AI features to enhance its offerings.
In May, Bloomberg reported that Apple was teaming up with Anthropic on a new 'vibe-coding' software platform that will use AI to write, edit and test code on behalf of programmers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
34 minutes ago
- Forbes
Copyrighted Books Are Fair Use For AI Training. Here's What To Know.
The use of AI systems has become part of our daily lives. The sudden presence of generative AI systems in our daily lives has prompted many to question the legality of how AI systems are created and used. One question relevant to my practice: Does the ingestion of copyrighted works such books, articles, photographs, and art to train an AI system render the system's creators liable for copyright infringement, or is that ingestion defensible as a 'fair use'? A court ruling answers this novel question, and the answer is: Yes, the use of copyrighted works for AI training is a fair use – at least under the specific facts of those cases and the evidence presented by the parties. But because the judges in both cases were somewhat expansive in their dicta about how their decisions might have been different, they provide a helpful roadmap as to how other lawsuits might be decided, and how a future AI system might be designed so as not to infringe copyright. The rulings on Meta and Anthropic's respective cases require some attention. Let's take a closer look. More than 30 lawsuits have been filed in the past year or two, in all parts of the nation, by authors, news publishers, artists, photographers, musicians, record companies and other creators against various AI systems, asserting that using the authors' respective copyrighted works for AI training purposes violates their copyrights. The systems' owners invariably assert fair use as a defense. They provide a helpful roadmap as to how other lawsuits might be decided, and how a future AI system might be designed so as not to infringe copyright. The Anthropic Case Anthropic planned to create a central library of "all the books in the world." The first decision, issued in June, involved a lawsuit by three book authors, who alleged that Anthropic PBC infringed the authors' copyrights by copying several of their books (among millions of others) to train its text generative AI system called Claude. Anthropic's defense was fair use. Judge Alsup, sitting the Northern District Court of California, held that the use of the books for training purposes was a fair use, and that the conversion of any print books that Anthropic had purchased and converted to digital was also a fair use. However, Anthropic's use of pirated digital copies for purposes of creating a central library of 'all the books in the world' for uses beyond training Claude, was not a fair use. Whether Anthropic's copying of its central library copies for purposes other than AI training (and apparently there was some evidence that this was going on, but on a poorly developed record) was left for another day. It appears that Anthropic decided early on in its designing of Claude that books were the most valuable training materials for a system that was designed to 'think' and write like a human. Books provide patterns of speech, prose and proper grammar, among other things. Anthropic chose to download millions of free digital copies of books from pirate sites. It also purchased millions of print copies of books from booksellers, converted them to digital copies and threw the print copies away, resulting in a massive central library of 'all the books in the world' that Anthropic planned to keep 'forever.' None of this activity was done with the authors' permission. Significantly, Claude was designed so that it would not reproduce any of the plaintiffs' books as output. There was not any such assertion by the plaintiffs, nor any evidence that it did so. The assertions of copyright infringement were, therefore, limited to Claude's ingestion of the books for training, to build the central library, and for the unidentified non-training purposes. Users of Claude ask it questions and it returns text-based answers. Many users use it for free. Certain corporate and other users of Claude pay to use it, generating over one billion dollars annually in revenue for Anthropic. The Anthropic Ruling Both decisions were from the federal district court in Northern California, the situs of Silicon ... More Valley. To summarize the legal analysis, Judge Alsup evaluated each 'use' of the books separately, as it must under the Supreme Court's 2023 Warhol v. Goldsmith fair use decision. Turning first to the use of the books as training data, Alsup found that the use of the books to train Claude was a 'quintessentially' transformative use which did not supplant the market for the plaintiffs' books, and as such qualified as fair use. He further found that the conversion of the purchased print books to digital files, where the print copies were thrown away, was also a transformative use akin to the Supreme Court's 1984 Betamax decision in which the court held that the home recording of free TV programming for time-shifting purposes was a fair use. Here, Judge Alsup reasoned, Anthropic lawfully purchased the books and was merely format-shifting for space and search capability purposes, and, since the original print copy was discarded, only one copy remained (unlike the now-defunct Redigi platform of 2018). By contrast, the downloading of the over seven million of pirate copies from pirate sites, which at the outset was illegal, for central library uses other than for training purposes could not be held to be a fair use as a matter of law, because the central library use was unjustified and the use of the pirate copies could supplant the market for the original. Anthropic Is Liable For Unfair Uses – The Cost of Doing Business? The case will continue on the issue of damages for the pirated copies of the plaintiffs' books used for central library purposes and not for training purposes. The court noted that the fact that Anthropic later purchased copies of plaintiffs' books to replace the pirated copies will not absolve it of liability, but might affect the amount of statutory damages it has to pay. The statutory damages range is $750 per copy at a minimum and up to $150,000 per copy maximum. It tempts one to wonder about all those other millions of copyright owners beyond the three plaintiffs – might Anthropic have to pay statutory damages for seven million copies if the pending class action is certified? Given the lucrativeness of Claude, could that be just a cost of doing AI business? The Meta Case Meta's decision to use shadow libraries to source books was approved by CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The second decision, issued two days following the Anthropic decision, on June 25, involves thirteen book authors, most of them famous non-fiction writers, who sued Meta, the creator of a generative AI model called Llama, for using the plaintiffs' books as training data. Llama (like Claude), is free to download, but generates billions of dollars for Meta. Like Anthropic, Meta initially looked into licensing rights from book publishers, but eventually abandoned those efforts and instead downloaded the books it desired from pirate sites called 'shadow libraries' which were not authorized by the copyright owners to store their works. Also like Claude, Llama was designed not to produce output that reproduced its source material in whole or substantial part, the record indicating that Llama could not be prompted to reproduce more than 50 words from the plaintiffs' books. Judge Chhabria, also in the Northern District of California, held Meta's use of plaintiffs' works to train Llama was a fair use, but he did so very reluctantly, chiding the plaintiff's lawyers for making the 'wrong' arguments and failing to develop an adequate record. Chhabria's decision is riddled with his perceptions of the dangers of AI systems potentially flooding the market with substitutes for human authorship and destroying incentives to create. The Meta Ruling Based on the parties' arguments and the record before him, like Judge Alsup, Judge Chhabria found that Meta's use of the books as training data for Llama was 'highly transformative' noting that the purpose of the use of the books - for creating an AI system - was very different than the plaintiffs' purpose of the books, which was for education and entertainment. Rejecting plaintiff's argument that Llama could be used to imitate the style of plaintiffs' writing, Judge Chhabria noted that 'style is not copyrightable.' The fact that Meta sourced the books from shadow libraries rather than authorized copies didn't make a difference; Judge Chhabria (in my opinion rightly) reasoned that to say that a fair use depends on whether the source copy was authorized begs the question of whether the secondary copying was lawful. Although plaintiffs tried to make the 'central library for other purposes than training' argument that was successful in the Anthropic case, Judge Chhabria concluded that the evidence simply didn't support that copies were used for purposes other than training, and noted that even if some copies were not used for training, 'fair use doesn't require that the secondary user make the lowest number of copies possible.' Since Llama couldn't generate exact or substantially similar versions of plaintiffs' books, he found there was no substitution harm, noting that plaintiffs' lost licensing revenue for AI training is not a cognizable harm. Judge Chhabria's Market Dilution Prediction Judge Chhabria warns that generative AI systems could dilute the market for lower-value mass market ... More publications. In dicta, clearly expressing frustration with the outcome in Meta's favor, Judge Chhabria discussed in detail how he thought market harm could – and should - be shown in other cases, through the concept of 'market dilution' - warning that a system like Llama, while not producing direct substitutes for a plaintiff's work, could compete with and thus dilute the plaintiff's market. There may be types of works unlike award-winning fictional works more susceptible to this harm, he said, such as news articles, or 'typical human-created romance or spy novels.' But since the plaintiffs before him didn't make those arguments, nor presented any record of the same, he said, he could not make a ruling on the same. This opportunity is left for another day. AI System Roadmap For Non-Infringement The court decisions provide an early roadmap as to how to design an AI system. Based on these two court decisions, here are my take-aways for building a roadmap for a non-infringing generative AI system using books:
TechCrunch
40 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
OpenAI condemns Robinhood's ‘OpenAI tokens'
OpenAI wants to make clear that Robinhood's sale of 'OpenAI tokens' will not give everyday consumers equity — aka stock — in OpenAI, the company said in a post on X from its official newsroom account. OpenAI says it does not endorse Robinhood's effort, nor was it involved in facilitating the token sale. 'These 'OpenAI tokens' are not OpenAI equity,' said OpenAI's newsroom account. 'We did not partner with Robinhood, were not involved in this, and do not endorse it. Any transfer of OpenAI equity requires our approval—we did not approve any transfer. Please be careful.' These 'OpenAI tokens' are not OpenAI equity. We did not partner with Robinhood, were not involved in this, and do not endorse it. Any transfer of OpenAI equity requires our approval—we did not approve any transfer. Please be careful. — OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) July 2, 2025 OpenAI's statement is a response to Robinhood's announcement earlier this week that it would started selling so-called tokenized shares of OpenAI, SpaceX, and other private companies to people in the European Union. Robinhood says the launch represents an attempt to give everyday people exposure to equity in the world's most valuable private companies via blockchain. Hours after announcing these token sales, Robinhood's stock price shot to an all-time high. But stock in private companies like OpenAI and SpaceX are not available to the public. That's what makes them private. They sell shares to investors of their choosing. So OpenAI is openly disavowing Robinhood's effort. In response to OpenAI's condemnation, Robinhood spokesperson Rouky Diallo told TechCrunch that OpenAI tokens were part of a 'limited' giveaway to offer retail investors indirect exposure 'through Robinhood's ownership stake in a special purpose vehicle (SPV).' Techcrunch event Save $450 on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Save $200+ on your TechCrunch All Stage pass Build smarter. Scale faster. Connect deeper. Join visionaries from Precursor Ventures, NEA, Index Ventures, Underscore VC, and beyond for a day packed with strategies, workshops, and meaningful connections. Boston, MA | REGISTER NOW That suggests Robinhood owns shares of a SPV that controls a certain number of OpenAI's shares. Like the tokens, shares of SPVs are not direct ownership of shares, either. They are ownership in a vehicle that owns the shares. In one way or another, Robinhood seems to be tying the price of its new tokenized product to the OpenAI shares in that SPV. But shares prices in an SPV can also differ from prices of an actual share of stock, as well. OpenAI declined to comment further. Robinhood did not respond to TechCrunch's additional questions about its SPV. Private companies are known to push back against anything that could influence how their equity is valued. In recent months, humanoid robotics startup Figure AI sent cease-and-desist letters to two brokers running secondary markets that were marketing the company's stock. Of course, these situations are different, but most startups don't want people to believe that they've authorized share sales if they haven't.
CNET
an hour ago
- CNET
Early July 4th Apple Deals: 17 Top Offers Including Up to $170 Off MacBooks, $200 Off iPads and More
Apple makes some of the best tech on the market, but that level of quality can come with a hefty price tag. While direct discounts from Apple are rare, it's not totally impossible to find deals on its products. Right now, retailers are slashing prices on Apple tech for the Fourth of July, giving you a chance to grab the company's latest devices for less. Major retailers like Best Buy and Amazon are offering serious savings on Apple laptops, smartwatches, tablets, earbuds and more, and we've rounded up the best deals. There's no guarantee they'll stick around through Independence Day, so we'd recommend taking advantage of these discounts while you can. We'll continue to update this page as offers come and go, so be sure to check back for the latest and greatest bargains. Best early July 4th Apple deals Apple MacBook Air M4 (13-inch): $849 The M4 MacBook Air is the latest model in Apple's lightweight lineup, and it's our overall favorite laptop on the market right now. The basic model comes with 16GB of RAM and 256GB of storage, with plenty of more-advanced configurations also on sale. Details Save $150 $849 at Amazon Close Apple AirPods 4: $159 The latest AirPods with active noise cancellation are dust-, sweat- and water-resistant, perfect for all your summer adventures. Even the spatial audio works with compatible content in supported apps. Details Save $20 $159 at Amazon Close Apple iPad A16: $299 This 2025 iPad is the latest model in Apple's flagship lineup, and it's our top pick for the overall best tablet of 2025. It features an 11-inch display, 12MP front and rear cameras, Wi-Fi 6 support and an updated A16 processor. Details Save $50 $299 at Amazon Close Apple Watch Series 10: $299 Apple's latest wearable is the top smartwatch of 2025, and you can grab it at a record-low price of just $299 right now. This GPS model has a 42mm Always-On Retina display and all the top fitness and connection features you'd expect from our highest-recommended model. Details Save $100 $299 at Amazon Close Apple Pencil Pro: $99 This Apple Pencil Pro is $30 off and pairs perfectly with your compatible iPads to draw, take notes and more. This Pro version is more precise and use gestures and haptic feedback for a better user experience. Plus, it attaches magnetically for wireless pairing and charging. Details Save $30 $99 at Amazon $99 at Walmart Close More Apple July 4th sales and deals Does Apple offer early July 4th sales? It's important to note that, while the Apple Store doesn't run sales for the Fourth of July (and rarely offers discounts outside of educational promos), deals on Apple devices and accessories can be found from authorized retailers, including Amazon. The best deals usually accompany big events like Amazon Prime Day or a major holiday, both of which are coming up. There are plenty of sales where you can find discounted Apple products, including Best Buy and Walmart, making it an excellent time to shop for Apple sales on several devices. If you're looking to spend less, try forgoing the latest releases. You'll find bigger discounts on previous-generation models or refurbished devices. Should I wait until Prime Day for deals on Apple products? There's no definitive way to say whether Fourth of July sales or Prime Day deals are best. Both sales offer plenty of deals, including some of the best prices we'll see all year. Plus, in all likelihood, the two sales are going to blur into one big discount extravaganza, given their proximity on the calendar. Fourth of July sales offer more variety in retailers, though much of your shopping may take place on Amazon anyway. There are also plenty of non-Amazon retailers that will keep their sales rolling through mid-July, often directly competing with Amazon Prime prices. Since you'll be able to shop so many Fourth of July sales in just a few weeks, you'll be able to check out the deals, grab what you need and then keep tabs on Prime Day deals later for anything you miss out on. How does CNET select the best July 4th deals? Our team of expert shoppers and deal hunters has spent years helping buyers understand which major sales and deals are legitimately good and which are more routine. That includes Black Friday, Prime Day, Memorial Day and countless other shopping events. We've gotten good at weeding out scams and superficial deals on tech of every kind, so you see only the best offers, including Apple deals. At CNET, we look for real discounts, quality reviews and remaining sale time when choosing a deal to show you.
