231–240 of 244 posts
This is Apple commoditizing LLMs while keeping control of the UX. They are a hardware company and will keep selling the best machine for AI use. Well done.
Benedict Evans may be right after all; frontier models look more and more like telecom companies in the 90s. Billions and billions of investment in infrastructure while others further up the stack captured all the value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that. What stops the Chinese labs from figuring it out? It’s not like these models are fundamentally different from each other
If all you have is the starting point and the finishing point, the lack of the path taken from one point to another limits your ability to train models that can efficiently recreate the work, and increases its cost enough that it's possible the US labs can progress capabilities faster than Chinese labs can distill that behavior.
OpenAI and Anthropic may have gone silent on how they build their models, but other companies have different incentives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's what they are trying to avoid. If you need on-device intelligence, their pitch was "The model the device already has is best", and if you need something more specific an adapter (aka, a fine-tune/lora) is best. They were wrong when their on-device model was way behind. They still might be right in the long term. While multiple app I use might need Gemma 4 E4B, I use dozens of apps and app devs can choo…
But models aren't universally best, especially small ones. For text Gemma is great. For vision qwen3.6 is amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Benedict Evans may be right after all; frontier models look more and more like telecom companies in the 90s. Billions and billions of investment in infrastructure while others further up the stack captured all the value.
In spite of their deeper pockets, massive datacenters, colosal amounts of user data, and hundreds of thousands of top developers, even Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and Google are well behind. I think Evans is completely wrong. There are only 2 truly frontier models. (at least for now). And Anthropic seems to be leaving OpenAI behind so there might be only 1 in the near future. (which is scary/dangerous)
Well, in domains like SWE where Anthropic's putting in the effort. I don't they'll make the claims that OpenAI makes about how their models are pushing the life sciences forward, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all you have is the starting point and the finishing point, the lack of the path taken from one point to another limits your ability to train models that can efficiently recreate the work, and increases its cost enough that it's possible the US labs can progress capabilities faster than Chinese labs can distill that behavior.
That’s already the case. Chinese ingenuity allowed them to achieve what they did without access to reasoning outputs
This isn't Claude specific. Developers can also write apps that call Google's server based Gemini models. > At WWDC, Apple announced that it's opening its Foundation Models framework to third-party cloud model providers. Starting with iOS 27, macOS 27, iPadOS 27, visionOS 27 and watchOS 27, model providers can implement the new public LanguageModel protocol to provide a common interface for model inference. We've mad…
The important part is Apple rebranding “OpenAI-compatible API” to “language model protocol” and I think we should all rally around this immediately before we’re cursed with that awful tongue twister.
Protocol in this context means a Swift language feature, like interface in some other languages: https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/documentation/the-swift-pr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s already the case. Chinese ingenuity allowed them to achieve what they did without access to reasoning outputs
This has got to be satire. Everyone, especially Singaporeans, know what "Chinese ingenuity" really is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an occasional python user I'm always amazed and frustrated that it seems that the only way to be able to use/build anything is to create a whole separate environment. And now given everybody now does this I guess the incentive to stop breaking stuff reduces even further. Might as well have static binaries.
That’s exactly how NPM works, and how Cargo works by default. You can make npm install stuff globally, but that’s not recommended except for things like CLI tooling. Cargo builds every project in its own separate targets/ directory unless you manually configure it to share that dir between builds. In both cases, the default is to isolate your current project from everything else on the system. The main difference is…
I'm just speculating that's it's a self reinforcing pattern - compatibility problems leads to isolated builds, which reduces peoples concern for backwards compatibility, which makes isolated builds ever more important.
Maybe it's fine - a trade off that allows greater velocity of development, it just seems attention to backwards compatibility is becoming a thing of the past.
Seems that the UX will be enough to win over users and investors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why can’t Apple launch a $50k product for $1k? Everyone would buy it!
To go further down this pipe dream - Anthropic / OpenAI would buy them all and still price out the consumer. There's no end-run in this scenario.
It’s like saying “well if Subaru launches a nice hybrid suv for $1k it’ll sell like pancakes” and yeah.. but it costs more in steel/ram to build that lol