David Pierce from The Verge faults it in the summary: "it just doesn't work." Joanna Stern, always the more jovially gimmicky for the average mortal, says "I thought it would be really cool, but it's literally not".

And among people I find online, criticism seems to be the default. I still think it's largely out of hope and love: people know this is an ex-Apple team who contributed valuably in that culture, so they want to offer the accurate feedback on which an artist's growth depends, as Data put it.

The team did make a much more grounded video actually introducing the thing (as opposed to their actual introduction video, where they seemed to think they could just walk into frame, do a few demos without much explanation, and expect viewers to understand the rationale, motivation, and basics behind it, and to square it all with the abstract hype previously floated.)

It's apparent there is a great deal of complexity in this device, composed in a way that resembles no other device. But the only way I can see to begin to appreciate that is to begin to understand it from scratch, despite the hype. On their behalf, I hope this is something like the Vision Pro, where the first iteration is sometimes impressive, but obviously not something that will change the world, or that any layperson should buy at its price. Maybe it's a helpful step toward something less currently possible, and should instead be regarded that way by… well, everyone.

Reassuringly, however: it seems most reviewers have capitalized the term "AI" properly, even within the product name. Humane itself remains one of the only publicizers to capitalize it in its own rebarbative fashion. (It's already an unfortunate term.) Something tells me that if someone on the team is entertaining the idea that this spelling suggests they're somehow a little out of touch, they have a shot at addressing the other ways in which they are.