Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

machinelearning.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 562 posts

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#391

Post by Matl »

csvm wrote: post #344
lolinder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. Was anyone expecting anything new? Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology exploring spaces that no one has explored before—from laptops to the iPhone to iPads to watches, every success they've had has come from taking tech that was already prototyped by many other companies and smoothing out the usability kinks to get it r…

Prototyping tech is one thing; making it a widely adopted success is another. For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#392

Post by swyx »

worstspotgain wrote: post #167
tmpz22 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the majority of the keynote they explicitly avoided the word AI instead substituting the word Intelligence, then Apple Intelligence, and then towards the end they said AI and ChatGPT once or twice. I think they saw the response to all the AI shoveling and Microsoft Recall and executed a fantastic strategy to reposition themselves in industry discussions. I still have tons of reservations about privacy and what th…

> executed a fantastic strategy to reposition themselves in industry discussions Just the usual marketing angle, IMO. It's not TV, it's HBO. No one is reluctant to use the word smartphone to include iPhones. I don't think anyone is going to use the Apple Intelligence moniker except in the same cases where they'd say iCloud instead of cloud services. It's also a little clunky. Maybe they could have gone with... xI? To…

correct. last year instead of VR they went with Spatial Intelligence

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#393

Post by anshumankmr »

As someone who has been dabbling with Prompt Engineering and now fine tuning some models (working on a use case where we may have to fine tune one of the Mistral's 7B instruct models), I want to know what kind of skillsets I need to really have so that I can join this team (or a similar team building these sort of things)

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#394

Post by throw0101d »

Matl wrote: post #391
csvm wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prototyping tech is one thing; making it a widely adopted success is another. For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

> On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

Then laugh at Samsung and their flagship line of phones as well, since they haven't had headphone jacks for a while now. "After Note 10 dumps headphone jack, Samsung ads mocking iPhone dongles disappear" (2019):

* https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/after-removing-headphone-ja...

"Samsung is hiding its ads that made fun of Apple's removal of headphone jack":

* https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-headphone-jack-ads-...

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#395

Post by throwthrowuknow »

derefr wrote: post #201
rishabhjain1198 wrote: post #166

For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. IMO they should do a better job of referencing existing papers and techniques. The way they wrote about "adaptors" can make it seem like it's something novel, but it's actually just re-iterating vanilla LoRA. It was enough to convince one of the top-voted HackerNews comments that this was a "huge development". Benchmarks are nice though.

I think the thing they're saying that's novel, isn't what they have (LoRAs), but where and when and how they make them. Rather than just pre-baking static LoRAs to ship with the base model (e.g. one global "rewrite this in a friendly style" LoRA, etc), Apple seem to have chosen a bounded set of behaviors they want to implement as LoRAs — one for each "mode" they want their base model to operate in — and then set up a…

I think you’re misunderstanding what they mean by adapting to use cases. See this passage:

> The adapter models can be dynamically loaded, temporarily cached in memory, and swapped — giving our foundation model the ability to specialize itself on the fly for the task at hand

This along with other statements in the article about keeping the base model weights unchanged says to me that they are simply swapping out adapters on a per app or per task basis. I highly doubt they will fine tune adapters on user data since they have taken a position against this. I wonder how successful this approach will be vs merging the adapters with the base model. I can see the benefits but there are also downsides.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#396

Post by bildung »

csvm wrote: post #344
lolinder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. Was anyone expecting anything new? Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology exploring spaces that no one has explored before—from laptops to the iPhone to iPads to watches, every success they've had has come from taking tech that was already prototyped by many other companies and smoothing out the usability kinks to get it r…

Prototyping tech is one thing; making it a widely adopted success is another. For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

Was that really the case? I remember they were mocked for e.g. offering wifi only, firewire only etc., while the respective removed alternatives were way more common.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#397

Post by marci »

rmbyrro wrote: post #380
lolinder wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For people interested in AI research, there's nothing new here. Was anyone expecting anything new? Apple has never been big on living at the cutting edge of technology exploring spaces that no one has explored before—from laptops to the iPhone to iPads to watches, every success they've had has come from taking tech that was already prototyped by many other companies and smoothing out the usability kinks to get it r…

I think you misinterpreted OP's comment. Apple makes it sound like there's smth new, but there isn't. They don't have to innovate, but it's good practice to credit who've done what they're taking and using. Also to use the names everyone else is already using.

The strange thing is Apple did mention (twice) in the article that their adapters are loras so I don't understand OP's comment.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#398

Post by jb1991 »

Matl wrote: post #391
csvm wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prototyping tech is one thing; making it a widely adopted success is another. For instance, Apple was the first to bring WiFi to laptops in 1999. Everyone laughed at them at the time. Who needs a wireless network when you can have a physical LAN, ey?

On the other hand, people who laughed at them removing the 3.5mm jack can still safely laugh away.

Interesting that you suggest laughing at their decision to remove the headphone jack, when it was actually just the first of an industry-wide shift that has done so by other companies.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#399

Post by hajile »

Hugsun wrote: post #285
throwaway4good wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think NVIDIA has the highest hardware markup at the moment.

You get considerably more ML FLOPS per dollar in a 4090 than any mac. It seems like the base M2 MAX is at roughly the same price point. It does grant you more RAM. Quadro and Tesla cards might be a different story. I would still like to see concrete FLOPS/$ numbers.

They don't need the entire mac. Their cost per Max chip is probably $200-300 which beats the 4090 by a massive margin and each chip can do more than a 4090 because it also has a CPU onboard.

4090 peaks out at around 550w which means they can run 5+ of their Max chips in the same power budget.

A 4090 is $2000. Apple can probably get 5 chips on a custom motherboard for that cost. They'll use the same amount of power, but get a lot more raw compute.

Re: Apple's On-Device and Server Foundation Models

#400

Post by mensetmanusman »

Malcolmlisk wrote: post #357
pyinstallwoes wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still no manufacturer compares to the quality of apple screens and resolution …

Those screens are produced by samsung.

Part of the screen is, yes. Apple designs the full stack and sources new technology from multiple suppliers including Samsung.
Post reply on HN