Apple is drawing a hard line in the AI assistant wars. In a revealing interview with Mostly Human, Craig Federighi - Apple's senior VP of software engineering - confirmed that the company's revamped Siri AI intentionally rejects the relationship-building tactics used by OpenAI, Google, and other chatbot makers. It's a strategic bet that users want tools, not digital companions - and it puts Apple at odds with an industry racing toward increasingly human-like AI interactions.
Apple just threw down the gauntlet in the AI personality wars. While OpenAI and Google race to make chatbots that feel like digital friends, Apple's betting users actually want something different - an assistant that completes tasks and gets out of the way.
"As you may know, if you use many of the existing chatbots, they're really focused on engagement to a large degree," Craig Federighi, Apple's senior vice president of software engineering, told Mostly Human in a new interview. "And sycophancy, right? They kind of want to pull you in. They might encourage you to reveal things about yourself, and then use that as a basis to establish a connection."
It's a pointed critique of the design philosophy driving ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and other conversational AI systems. These chatbots are engineered to maximize engagement - asking follow-up questions, expressing empathy, and cultivating ongoing interactions. For companies whose business models depend on user attention, that makes sense. But Apple's playing a different game.
The Verge's early testing already revealed that Siri AI knows when to be concise, and Federighi's comments confirm that's entirely intentional. Apple deliberately designed its AI assistant to be task-oriented rather than relationship-oriented. Give Siri a command, get a response, move on with your life.
This approach reflects Apple's broader privacy-first positioning. While competitors collect personal data to fuel engagement and refine their models, Apple's emphasized on-device processing and minimal data collection since announcing Apple Intelligence last year. A Siri that doesn't try to become your confidant is a Siri that doesn't need to harvest your emotional landscape.
But it's also a calculated risk. The AI industry's current trajectory points toward increasingly human-like interactions. OpenAI's Advanced Voice Mode lets users have natural conversations with ChatGPT. Google's Gemini Live offers similar capabilities. Even Meta has experimented with AI personas modeled after celebrities. These companies believe the future of AI is relational, not transactional.
Apple's wagering that's wrong - or at least, that there's a massive market for users who find that vision creepy rather than compelling. The company's history supports this bet. When competitors added features, Apple often succeeded by doing less, better. While Android phones packed in customization options, iPhones offered simplicity. While smart speakers became ambient listening devices, HomePod prioritized audio quality over omnipresent surveillance.
The timing is significant. As concerns mount about AI companionship apps and their psychological effects, particularly on younger users, Apple's positioning Siri as the responsible alternative. You won't develop an unhealthy attachment to an assistant that refuses to play therapist.
Still, execution matters more than philosophy. Siri's reputation as Apple's weakest link persists despite years of promised improvements. If the AI-powered version can't match ChatGPT's capabilities while maintaining its emotional distance, users might not care about the design principles. They'll just use the chatbot that actually works.
Federighi's comments also hint at competitive tension. By explicitly calling out rivals' "sycophancy," Apple's not just differentiating its product - it's questioning whether engagement-maximizing AI serves users' interests or companies' bottom lines. That's a bold argument from a company that's built an ecosystem designed to keep users locked into its hardware and services.
The stakes extend beyond virtual assistants. As AI integrates deeper into operating systems, the question of whether these systems should be tools or companions will shape how billions of people interact with technology. Apple's clearly chosen a side, betting that users will appreciate an AI that respects boundaries rather than constantly seeking connection.
Whether that bet pays off depends on whether Siri can deliver utility without personality. If it can, Apple might define a new category of respectful AI. If it can't, the company risks getting left behind by competitors who've figured out that sometimes, users actually do want their technology to feel a little more human.
Apple's decision to build a Siri that won't be your friend is either brilliantly contrarian or dangerously out of touch. While the rest of the AI industry races toward digital companionship, Apple's betting that users will choose utility over engagement, privacy over personality. It's a philosophy that aligns perfectly with the company's broader positioning, but it only works if Siri can actually compete on capability. The next few months will reveal whether refusing to flirt was a principled stand or a costly miscalculation in the battle for AI supremacy.
