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

401–410 of 562 posts

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

#401

Post by pjmlp »

rfoo wrote: post #345
pjmlp wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dynamic linking has always been cool for writing plugins. It is kind of ironic that languages that praise so much for going back to early linking models, have to resort for much heavier OS IPC for similar capabilities.

Which languages? IIUC Go and Rust resort to OS IPC based plugin system mainly because they refused to have a stable ABI. On the other hand, at $DAYJOB we have a query engine written in C++ (which itself uses mostly static linking [1]) loading mostly static linked UDFs and ... it works. [1] Without glibc, but with libstdc++ / libgcc etc.

Well if it loads code dynamically, it is no longer static linking.

Also it isn't as if there is a stable ABI for C and C++ either, unless everything is compiled with the same compiler, or using Windows like dynamic libraries, or something like COM to work around the ABI limitations.

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

#402

Post by lelandfe »

jeroenhd wrote: post #287
m463 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bet it depends on the country. In the USA, you won't be able to ask about sex, but you can probably ask about tank man.

I would've thought the same until Microsoft started hiding tank man results in Bing. I'm not so sure if companies will start training different models for every oppressive regime.

2021, a classic, “we made a whoopsie” response.

https://theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/04/microsoft-bin...

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

#403

Post by steve1977 »

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.

You know what company you are talking about here?

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

#404

Post by whazor »

solarkraft wrote: post #152
ndgold wrote: post #73

Absolutely awesome amount of content in these two pages. This was not expected. It is appreciated. I can’t wait to use the server model on a Mac to spin up my own cloud optimized for the Apple stack.

What makes you think you'll get that model? Edit: I see they're committing to publishing the OS images running on their inference servers ( https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/ ). Would be cool if that allowed people to run their own.

It would be much cooler if enterprises can swap to their custom models in their own clouds.

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

#406

Post by steve1977 »

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.

> Also to use the names everyone else is already using.

That would be a very un-Apple thing to do. They really like to use their own marketing terms for technologies. It's not ARM, it's Apple Silicon. It wasn't Wi-Fi, it was AirPort. etc. etc.

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

#407

Post by steve1977 »

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?

> 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?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPort:

"AirPort 802.11b card"

"The original model, known as simply AirPort card, was a re-branded Lucent WaveLAN/Orinoco Gold PC card, in a modified housing that lacked the integrated antenna."

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

#408

Post by tivert »

throw0101d wrote: post #394
Matl wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> 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):

I totally do. One of the problems with Apple is the industry seems to mindlessly ape their good and bad decisions. Their marketing has been so good, many people just assume whatever they do must be the best way.

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

#409

Post by XajniN »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #282
theshrike79 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the EU the market share is 30%

Yes but not evenly distributed, BeNeLux, Germany, Austria, and Nordic countries have a lot of iPhone users, while moving further east (or south) you see lower market share. Maybe it’s “two handfuls” of wealthy western countries rather than just one, but I think OPs point holds true.

One average American user is probably worth 5-10 average European users.

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

#410

Post by gumby »

steve1977 wrote: post #406
rmbyrro wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also to use the names everyone else is already using. That would be a very un-Apple thing to do. They really like to use their own marketing terms for technologies. It's not ARM, it's Apple Silicon. It wasn't Wi-Fi, it was AirPort. etc. etc.

> It wasn't Wi-Fi, it was AirPort. etc. etc.

FWIW the term “airport” predated the name “wifi” — in those days you had to otherwise call it IEEE 802.11.

And the name as great: people were buying them like crazy and hiding them in the drop ceiling to get around the corporate IT department. A nice echo of how analysts would buy their own apple II + visicalc to…get around corporate IT.

I’m OK with Apple using “apple silicon” as the ARM is only part of it.

Just commenting on your two examples; in general I agree with your point.

Post reply on HN