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

521–530 of 562 posts

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

#521

Post by scottyah »

breuleux wrote: post #480
brandall10 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been speculated that base config macbooks essentially act as loss leaders for higher end configs, so overall, probably sales across the line net somewhere around that. The cost of the upgrades themselves can get to multiple times the actual market cost.

I feel like this is very obviously what they are doing: they have a small margin on the entry config where people are a lot more price-aware, and jack up the upgrade costs to get a fat margin on configs bought by orgs and power users who generally care less about how much it costs. Frankly, I'd do the same thing.

I always thought the products like the $700 computer wheels[1] and $1,000 monitor stands[2] are made exclusively for the companies who are trying to signal their wealth. For anyone who knows how much these accessories cost, walking into an office where all the workstations have these components puts out a message of wealth (much like standing desks, Herman Miller chairs, expensive art, super espresso machines, etc).

I don't think it tarnishes their reputation as long as the products are both actually good quality and there are inexpensive alternatives. Why not get some easy cash while letting your customers display their vanity? It reminds me of the "I am rich" app[3].

[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-w... [2] https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MWUG2LL/A/pro-stand [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich

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

#522

Post by Aerbil313 »

astrange wrote: post #517
Aerbil313 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean that US is the measure of justice and goodness in the world and anyone who opposes her is a terrorist? I don't mean to detract the conversation but this is really victim blaming. There are valid situations where the US DoD is a threat. Your username reminded me of Julian Assange, for a second I mixed them up.

No, I assume if you're working for a foreign military then you wouldn't be posting about it on here.

I assume if I was working for a foreign power I'd already know the answer to my original question... unless there's no good answer.

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

#523

Post by throw0101d »

talldayo wrote: post #503
josephg wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation that stops companies copying ideas from one another would be a disaster.

I'm more suggesting that bad decisions should be litigated against fast-and-early, so other companies aren't encouraged to follow in Apple's footsteps. If every company had their own Lightning connector, there would be no choice but to force them all to converge. The original sin is letting it happen at all, in the first place.

> If every company had their own Lightning connector, there would be no choice but to force them all to converge.

You mean like forcing every phone maker to use the awesome connecter known as micro USB-B?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_external_power_supply

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

#524

Post by xena »

jimbobthrowawy wrote: post #177
xena wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you have to do is drop a token swear word into your content and they remove it from the dataset. Easy.

Why would they? From the moderate of testing I've done of their handwriting recognition on an ipad, they seem to have everything risqué/offensive I could think of in there, even if you have to write it more clearly than other words. I don't expect this to be much different, other than a word filter on the output.

I mean for their large language model training. They said they don't include low quality data and swearing. This means you can get out of it by swearing.

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

#525

Post by Der_Einzige »

astrange wrote: post #486
Aerbil313 wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can assure you that if you’re doing AI research, glowies likely spy on you, but it’s the “good” kind of spying where you might get a job offer some day instead of the kind where they Guantanamo bay you…

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

#526

Post by overstay8930 »

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?

Sorry to break it to you but you cannot hide from the US government if you use modern hardware or connect to the internet in any way.

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

#527

Post by overstay8930 »

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?

There is no other ecosystem that will provide easy E2EE in the cloud, that’s reason enough for the vast majority of users who are just sick of breaches because of pure sysadmin incompetence.

There are plenty of examples in every Apple service or even their accessories (i.e. wireless keyboard encryption). FaceTime is hardened from even theoretical attacks that could probably only be performed by 5 eyes like transcribing E2EE calls based on bandwidth use (FaceTime has built mitigations around this attack vector).

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

#528

Post by lostmsu »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #385
Malcolmlisk wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those screens are produced by samsung.

By your logic, I own a Foxconn smartphone with a FreeBSD-based OS. If you bought a Porsche, would you call it a Volkswagen?

Perhaps you should.

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

#529

Post by deanishe »

tivert wrote: post #408
throw0101d wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> One of the problems with Apple is the industry seems to mindlessly ape their good and bad decisions.

That's hardly Apple's fault, but it is so annoying. Hardly any of my cables have proper reinforcement sleeves any more.

Apple started making awful cables that snapped at the plugs, and everybody else just copied them.

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

#530

Post by arvinsim »

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.

> The way they wrote about "adaptors" can make it seem like it's something novel, but it's actually just re-iterating vanilla LoRA.

That's a classic Apple strategy though.

Post reply on HN