The agentic iPhone

Posted on by

Last month Apple announced a partnership with Google that will mark a fundamental shift in the iPhone architecture. The integration of Gemini into iOS means the system is pivoting from a collection of apps to an agentic operating system. It turns the iPhone into a more powerful cognitive lever, but it demands you trust the “black box” more than ever before. I prompted Gemini to show me what that might look like. Excerpts below, the full thread here)

I asked how a new, more powerful iPhone might change the way I write or research my blog posts:

When the operating system moves from being a “file cabinet” to an “active participant,” the boundary between your thoughts and the machine’s suggestions begins to blur.

  • The Loss of Serendipity: When the AI “fetches” the exact answer, you miss the accidental discovery of a different, unrelated factoid in the “wrong” folder. The “digital twin” optimizes for efficiency, but creativity often thrives on inefficiency.
  • The Echo Chamber of One: If Gemini is trained on your “Personal Context,” it will get very good at sounding like you. There is a real risk that your blog posts will start to feel like they’ve been “laundered” through an AI that is simply reflecting your own style back at you, stripping away the rough edges of original thought.
  • The “Privacy vs. Utility” Trap: To get these benefits, you have to let the “Campos” agent index your “private thoughts.” You’re essentially trading the sanctity of your “unrecorded” mind for a more powerful cognitive lever.

I’m sure I’ll find some uses for the new iOS but writing my blog posts won’t be one of them. Near the end of the thread Gemini gives specific instructions for how to disable some of these features.

Gemini analysis of my taste in movies

Posted on by

(Gemini) MovieLens.org is a non-commercial movie recommendation engine and research platform operated by the GroupLens Research lab at the University of Minnesota. Since its launch in 1997, it has served a dual purpose: providing users with high-accuracy personalized film suggestions and serving as a critical “living laboratory” for the study of collaborative filtering and human-computer interaction.

Unlike commercial alternatives like IMDb or Letterboxd, MovieLens is entirely free of advertisements and corporate sponsorship. Its primary output is academic insight. The site is famous for pioneering early collaborative filtering algorithms which predict how you will rate a film based on your historical behavior and the behavior of similar users.

Last year I spent a few hours on MovieLens.org rating 435 movies I had watched. I think my criteria was “would I watch this movie again?” I uploaded those those movies and my ratings and asked Gemini for an analysis.

Based on your 435 ratings, I’ve performed a skeptical audit of your cinematic preferences. I’ve bypassed the “predictive recommendations” fluff to look at where your taste actually diverges from the consensus.

1. The “Lebowski” Anomaly (Contrarian Profile) -You are significantly more critical than the average MovieLens user. While the site average is ~3.72, your mean rating is 3.41. You are most “contrarian” when it comes to established cult classics and high-concept stylistic films.

  • The Big Lebowski (1998): You gave this a 1.0, while the average is 3.99. This is a massive 3-point delta.
  • The Hateful Eight (2015): You gave it a 1.0 (Avg: 3.89).
  • The Abyss (1989): You gave it a 1.0 (Avg: 3.68).
  • Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010): You gave it a 1.5 (Avg: 3.77).

Analysis: You appear to have a low tolerance for “quirk” or indulgent stylistic flourishes that others label as “genius.”

2. The “Maverick” Picks (Guilty Pleasures or Hidden Gems?) – Conversely, you value certain films far higher than the general public. Your “Maverick” score is highest for:

  • Duets (2000): You gave it a 5.0 (Avg: 2.85). This is your largest positive divergence (+2.15).
  • World War Z (2013): You gave it a 5.0 (Avg: 3.30).
  • The Bourne Legacy (2012): You gave it a 5.0 (Avg: 3.43).
  • Mosul (2019): You gave it a 5.0 (Avg: 3.52).

Analysis: You seem to favor competence and high-stakes procedural/action narratives (Mosul, Bourne, Sicario) over “vibe-based” cinema.

3. Historical Bias (Decade Analysis) – Despite your skeptical leanings, you have a soft spot for the mid-century.

  • 1950s: Your highest-rated decade (Avg: 3.80).
  • 2010s: Your most critical decade (Avg: 3.30).
  • 1990s: Where you spent the most time (100 movies rated).

4. Interest Alignment: Radio & Mechanics – Given your interest in radio history and mechanical vehicles:

  • Radio: You gave Broadcast News (1987) a perfect 5.0. You seem to appreciate the “transmission” of truth or the mechanics of the medium.
  • Mechanical/Procedural: You rated Sicario (2015) a 5.0, which aligns with your preference for technical precision and unsentimental realism.
  • Consciousness/Mind: You gave A Beautiful Mind (2001) a 2.0, suggesting a skepticism toward Hollywood’s “glossy” portrayal of cognitive struggles.

You are a Pragmatic Realist. You reward movies that execute a specific function well (thrillers, procedurals, mid-century classics) and punitively down-rate movies that rely on irony, surrealism, or “cult” status to earn their keep.

Hmm. Not sure I agree but I guess the data doesn’t lie.

Mass market paperback books disappearing

Posted on by

I have a lot of paperback books and love them almost as much as I do hardcovers. So when I saw the following from Publishers Weekly, I had a moment of panic:

“ReaderLink stopped distributing mass market paperback books at the end of 2025… the latest blow to a format that has seen its popularity decline for years. According to Circana BookScan, mass market unit sales plunged from 131 million in 2004 to 21 million in 2024, a drop of about 84%, and sales this year through October were about 15 million units. But for many years, the mass market paperback was “the most popular reading format.”

Gemini clarified whats happening:

The shift away from mass market paperbacks isn’t the death of physical books, but it is a fundamental restructuring of the “hard copy” economy. Mass market books were always the high-volume, low-margin “disposable” tier of publishing—the rack-sized books found in grocery stores and pharmacies. With the bottom tier (mass market) disappearing, publishers are doubling down on Trade Paperbacks and Hardcovers. Since digital and audio handle the “cheap and convenient” segment now, physical books are increasingly marketed as collectibles or aesthetic objects. Buying a book will become an intentional trip to a bookstore or an online order, rather than an impulse buy while grabbing milk.

Mass market books usually retailed for $7.99 to $9.99. Trade paperbacks usually start at $16.99. By killing the mass market format, the industry is effectively raising the “floor” price for a new physical book by nearly 100%. This pushes budget-conscious readers further toward e-books or libraries.

Publishers will claim this is about “consumer preference,” but it’s just as much about margins. It’s more profitable to sell one $18 trade paperback than two $9 mass market books, especially when you factor in the rising costs of shipping and paper. The “non-bookstore” book is what’s disappearing. We are moving toward a world where physical books are treated as a premium hobby for collectors, while the “casual” reading is handled by screens.

Apple Music Update

Posted on by

I’ve been a fan of Apple Music since its launch in 2015 and have posted here praising the curation process. I asked Gemini for an update:

(Gemini) Apple Music leans heavily on human curation as a point of pride, positioning itself as a “cultural curator” rather than just a data utility. While Spotify is known for its “Algotorial” approach, Apple’s editorial team is the backbone of their most prominent playlists. Here is a breakdown of the people behind the lists:

The Global Editorial Team

Apple employs over 1,000 curators globally. These aren’t just tech employees; they are largely recruited from the worlds of professional DJing, music journalism, and radio programming.

  • The Specialists: They are organized by genre and region. For example, the person curating a “K-Pop” playlist likely lives in or has deep cultural ties to Seoul, rather than a generalist working out of Cupertino.
  • The Task: Their job is to listen to thousands of tracks weekly. Unlike algorithms, they are looking for “narrative flow”—ensuring the transition from a high-energy track to a mellow one feels intentional and human.
  • The Philosophy: Apple’s internal mandate often focuses on “human emotion and cultural wisdom.” They prioritize songs that might not have the best “data” (skips/saves) but are culturally significant or represent a “vibe” the algorithm might miss.

High-Profile Tastemakers

You’ll often see names attached to specific radio shows or “Guest Curator” lists. These individuals influence the editorial direction of the broader playlists:

  • Zane Lowe & the Radio Team: As the Global Creative Director, Lowe (formerly of BBC Radio 1) oversees much of the “tone.” His team includes veteran broadcasters like Ebro Darden (Hip-Hop/R&B) and Matt Wilkinson.
  • External Partners: Apple also allows “Brand Curators” to maintain profiles. These include publications like The Independent, Pitchfork, or Rolling Stone, and labels like Numero Group or XL Recordings.

How They Work With “The Machine”

The process is a feedback loop. While the human editors pick the “Flagship” tracks for playlists like Today’s Hits or Rap Life, they use data to see if their “gut feeling” was right.

  • If an editor places a song at #1 and users skip it 80% of the time, the data tells the editor to move it.
  • Conversely, the human editors provide the “high-authority signals” that the algorithm then uses to populate your personal Discovery Station or New Music Mix.

You won’t usually find an individual’s name on a standard Apple-branded playlist (e.g., Pure Throwback). However, if you look at the bottom of a playlist description, Apple often credits the curator if it’s an external partner. For internal lists, the “voice” is kept anonymous to maintain the Apple brand identity.

Scott Adams (1957-2026)

Posted on by

[see comment below]

For many years I was an ardent fan of cartoonist Scott Adams. Between 2002 and 2016 I posted more than one hundred times. I read five of his books and count God’s Debris as one of my all time favorites.

In 2016 Adams became a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and —as far as I know— remained one until he died a couple of weeks ago. I asked Gemini if Adams’ support for Trump affected his career. Continue reading →

“Can AI help us find God?”

Posted on by

Religious knowledge has become easy to access with as much detail as you might wish. You can learn about Vatican II or the Talmud ad infinitum. But it may mean something different to practitioners when it does not come from another human. An AI can write a sermon; in fact, if some confessional accounts can be believed, a majority of sermons are now at least co-authored with AI. But can it deliver that sermon and move worshippers to go out and do good works? With where things stand now, I doubt it.

From Tyler Cowen’s blog

Self, Universe, and Gibson’s Peripheral

Posted on by

As part of my on-going test drive of Google’s Gemini, I uploaded my 77 blog posts tagged Self and 51 posts tagged Universe with the following prompt:

I’d like to discuss “the nature of The Universe” as it relates to the Self. Before we begin, does Gemini “know” the premise of William Gibson’s novel, The Peripheral? No need to explain the premise, just making sure you are familiar with the story.

The resulting conversation (I don’t know what else to call it) is TLDR for most of today’s attention spans but it is an… interaction?… I could only have with an AI. Those of a philosophical bent might find it interesting. (see tags below)

The History of the Honda Element

Posted on by

I’ve watched a lot of videos about the Honda Element in the last six weeks but this is the best so far. (16 min)

One of those vehicles that never sold well but developed a cult following. A few descriptions:

  • “Honda’s version of the Swiss Army knife.”
  • “Cars Nobody Asked For: The Honda Element “
  • “The Honda Element: The Coolest Honda”
  • “The love child of a Mini Cooper and a Hummer”

Still don’t have mine and don’t know what I’ll wind up paying for it. But I’m hooked.

Why Drug Names Sound Bizarre (Gemini)

Posted on by

All pharmaceutical companies seem to come up with bizarre made up names for their drugs. I asked Google’s Gemini to explain why this is so.

Gemini: Drug naming is a collision of three high-stakes worlds: trademark law, regulatory safety, and marketing psychology. The “bizarre” names you see are rarely the result of a creative whim; they are what’s left after a thousand more sensible names have been rejected. Here is why they sound like they were generated by a broken algorithm: