Apple Intelligence Foundation Language Models Tech Report 2025

Post by j_timberlake » Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 3:54 AM UTC

bitpush wrote: post #38

The more I think about Apple, the more I realize that Apple is so far behind. While other companies are pushing the envelope (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google ..) Apple's ambitions seem much much smaller. And this is after they made very big claims with Apple Intelligence last year, when they had everyone fooled. This is like watching a train-wreck in slow motion.

Post by conradev » Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 4:01 AM UTC

simonw wrote: post #47

perfmode wrote: post #22

> We believe in training our models using diverse and high-quality data. This includes data that we’ve licensed from publishers, curated from publicly available or open- sourced datasets, and publicly available information crawled by our web-crawler, Applebot. > We do not use our users’ private personal data or user interactions when training our foundation models. Additionally, we take steps to apply filters to remo…

One problem with Apple's approach here is that they were scraping the web for training data long before they published the details of their activities and told people how to exclude them using robots.txt

Post by imoverclocked » Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 4:45 AM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #132

imoverclocked wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why isn’t my iPhone actually doing any of this yet? What exactly are you referring to? Models do run on iPhone and there are features that take advantage of it, today.

Yes, but why do I have to open a third-party app to do these things when Apple, the company that primarily popularized the entire genre of mobile voice assistants, could very feasibly bake all of that into theirs? I mean, the thing even lets me ask ChatGPT things if I explicitly ask it to! But why do I need to ask in the first place?

Post by ewoodrich » Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 5:14 AM UTC

steve-atx-7600 wrote: post #107

slashnode wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the right strategy for Apple. They're not a model company. The risks of deploying something half-baked to their users is unacceptable. They're taking it slow and trying to do it in a way that doesn't damage/erode their brand. Wait it out, let the best model(s) rise to the surface (and the hallucination problems to get sufficiently mitigated), and then either partner with a proprietary provider or deploy…

Exactly. Another mobile.me moment that adversely impacts customers is worse than making something useful that works. Anyone that “needs” AI can use an app.

Post by astrange » Fri, Jul 18, 2025, 5:32 AM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #121

astrange wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine if you want to, but I think they should consider that basically nobody is reading it. If it was important for society, photo apps would prompt you to embed it in the image like EXIF. Computer vision is getting good enough to generate it; it has to be, because real-world objects don't have alt text.

Why would photo apps do what's "important for society"? Annotating photos takes time/effort, and I could totally imagine photo apps being resistant to prompting their users for that, some of which would undoubtedly find it annoying, and many more confusing. Yet I don't think that one can conclude from that that annotations aren't helpful/important to vision impaired users (at least until very recently, i.e. before th…