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

481–490 of 562 posts

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

#481

Post by frompom »

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.

Do you have the same expectations for any company launching hardware that they cite the various papers related to how the tech was developed? EVERY piece of tech announced by ANY company relies on a variety of research out there yet it doesn't seem expected that every time anyone launches something they cite the numerous papers related to that. Why would products/services in this category be any different?

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

#482

Post by astrange »

joshstrange wrote: post #444
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.

This is such a tired talking point. Use a (lightning|USB-C)->3.5mm adapter or use bluetooth.

And your experience for phone use cases will be better, because walking with wired headphones in gives you nasty telephonic effects (sound transmission along the cable) and they get tangled up.

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

#483

Post by astrange »

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.

Except in Japan, where it's AirMac. And China, where it's WWAN not Wi-Fi.

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

#484

Post by astrange »

avidphantasm wrote: post #377
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.

Very little of the “AI” boom has been novel, most has been iterative elaborations (though innovative nonetheless). Academics have been using neural network statistical models for decades. What’s new is the combination of compute capability and data volume available for training. It’s iterative all the way down though, that’s how all technologies are developed.

The "bitter lesson of machine learning" means that you actually can't do anything novel; it won't work as well as just doing the simple thing but bigger.

(So there is room left if you're limited by memory or budget.)

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

#486

Post by astrange »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #417
overstay8930 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who understand cybersecurity hygiene use iPhones for obvious reasons

People who understand cybersecurity who are not operating within a US-allied country use ... I don't know what to be honest. What to do in such a situation, where Apple is a US-based company obligated by law to comply with requests from three letter agencies and Android is a buggy mess which probably is backdoored by every major power?

Your threat model shouldn't be about three letter agencies unless you're running a terrorist group. It should be about porn spammers or something.

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

#487

Post by astrange »

Hugsun wrote: post #295
overstay8930 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who understand cybersecurity hygiene use iPhones for obvious reasons

The reasons are very not obvious to me. Could you elaborate?

iPhone security is very good, better than, say, your desktop even though you don't carry your desktop everywhere you go. (Some Android security is also very good, depends on the hardware though.)

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

#488

Post by talldayo »

frompom wrote: post #481
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.

Do you have the same expectations for any company launching hardware that they cite the various papers related to how the tech was developed? EVERY piece of tech announced by ANY company relies on a variety of research out there yet it doesn't seem expected that every time anyone launches something they cite the numerous papers related to that. Why would products/services in this category be any different?

> Do you have the same expectations for any company launching hardware that they cite the various papers related to how the tech was developed?

If they try to market it with a seemingly unique or yet-unheard of name, then yeah. It is nice knowing what the "real world" name of an Apple-ized technology is.

Just ignoring it and marketing the technology under some new name is adjacent to lying to your audience through omission.

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

#489

Post by astrange »

miven wrote: post #260
bagrow wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://apple.github.io/coremltools/docs-guides/source/palet...

Huh, generally whenever I saw the lookup table approach in literature it was also referred to as quantization, guess they wanted to disambiguate the two methods Though I'm not sure how warranted it really is, in both cases it's still pretty much the same idea of reducing the precision, just with different implementations Edit: they even refer to it as LUT quantization on another page: https://apple.github.io/coremlto…

Just "quantization" is poor wording for that. Quantization means dropping the low bits.

Sounds like it was confused with "vector quantization" which does involve lookup tables (codebooks). But "palletization" is fine too.

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

#490

Post by talldayo »

hajile wrote: post #452
eek2121 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPU in the M-series is much slower than a 4090. 4060-4070ish performance at best, and it varies quite a bit.

If they can get 5 4070s for the price and power of one 4090, that's a win for them as they'll get more performance per dollar and per watt.

> and per watt

Part of the advantage of using "one 4090" is that the max TDP is only 450w, as opposed to 5 M2 Ultras running at ~150w each. When you scale up to Nvidia's latest Blackwell architecture, I genuinely don't know how Apple could beat them on performance-per-watt. Buying M2 Ultras wholesale is probably cheaper than an NVL72 cluster, but certainly not what you'd want to use for Linux or maximizing AI-based performance-per-watt.

Post reply on HN