211–220 of 343 posts
Microsoft owns 49 percent of OpenAI. That must be some really detailed 100+ pages contract. I bet Microsoft is mentioned multiple times with things to the effect of: "Under no condition is Microsoft allowed to access any of the data coming from iPhones."
Microsoft is mostly a cloud company these days though, and they're already an Apple vendor.
I still don't know a single person who wants this crap. I don't want "AI" in my web browser, I don't want it in my email client, I don't want it on my phone, I just don't want it. And it feels like everyone I speak to agrees! So who is this all for?
I actually want a virtual assistant that can reliably process my simple requests. But so far all these companies look like they are still in the figuring out phase, basically throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Hopefully after 2 or 3 years things will settle down and we will get a great virtual assistant.
This is one of those things that seems like a good idea but is really an existential threat to OpenAI. Having a single extremely large customer gives that customer a disproportionate amount of power over your business. Apple can decide one day to simply stop paying you because, hey, they can afford the years of litigation to resolve it. Can you weather than storm? Famously, Benjamin Moore (the paint company) maintain…
Um, wow. The major question in my mind: did Apple pay, or did OpenAI pay? (A-la google for search). Apple is not going to lose control of the customer, ever, so on balance I would guess this is either not a forever partnership or that OpenAI won’t ultimately get what they want out of it. I’m very curious to see how much will be done on device and how much will go to gpt4o out of the gate. I’m also curious if they’re…
Apple is definitely paying because they don't let OpenAI save anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are not accurate, they aren't subject matter experts that'll be maybe within 5% error margin. You're asserting that the AI features will be removed in 3 to 5 years because they're not accurate enough today , but you actually need them to remain inaccurate in 3 years time for your prediction to be correct. That seems unlikely. I agree that people will start to realize the cost, but the accuracy will improve, so p…
The same argument can be used for Tesla full self driving: basically it has to be (nearly) perfect, and after years of development, it's not there yet. What's different about LLMs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are the first ones to ship on-device inference at scale on non-nvidia hardware Which is neat, but it's not CUDA. It's an application-specific accelerator good at a small subset of operations, controlled by a high-level library the industry is unfamiliar with and too underpowered to run LLMs or image generators. The NPU is a novelty, and today's presentation more-or-less confirmed how useless it is for rich loc…
You're approaching this from a developers point of view. Users absolutely don't care if their prompt response has been generated by a CUDA kernel or some poorly documented apple specific silicon a poor team at cupertino almost lost their sanity to while porting the model. And haven't they already spent quite a bit on money on their pytorch-like MLX framework?
They most certainly will. If you run GPT-4o on an iPhone with MLX, it will suck. Users will tell you it sucks, and they won't do so in developer-specific terms.
The entire point of this thread is that Apple can't make users happy with their Neural Engine. They require a stopgap cloud solution to make up for the lack of local power on iPhone.
> And haven't they already spent quite a bit on money on their pytorch-like MLX framework?
As well as Accelerate Framework, Metal Performance Shaders and previously, OpenCL. Apple can't decide where to focus their efforts, least of which in a way that threatens CUDA as a platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ditto. They'll use it now while they stand to benefit and in 3 years they'll be lambasting OpenAI publicly for not being private enough with data and pretend that they never had anything to do with them.
This partnership is structured so that no data is logged or sent to OpenAI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are not accurate, they aren't subject matter experts that'll be maybe within 5% error margin. You're asserting that the AI features will be removed in 3 to 5 years because they're not accurate enough today , but you actually need them to remain inaccurate in 3 years time for your prediction to be correct. That seems unlikely. I agree that people will start to realize the cost, but the accuracy will improve, so p…
The same argument can be used for Tesla full self driving: basically it has to be (nearly) perfect, and after years of development, it's not there yet. What's different about LLMs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same argument can be used for Tesla full self driving: basically it has to be (nearly) perfect, and after years of development, it's not there yet. What's different about LLMs?
They don't have to be perfect to be useful, and death isn't the price of being wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's a market of 1 vendor. That's ripe for attack. it's just a monopoly [1] , how hard can it be? /s - [1] practically, because of how widespread cuda is
cuda is x86. the only way from 100% market share is down. …though it took two solid decades to even make a dent in x86.