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

541–550 of 562 posts

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

#541

Post by talldayo »

paulmd wrote: post #505
josephg wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been true for ages. They were the first to ditch the floppy disk drive and later cd drive in their computers. Both choices were very controversial at the time.

They were also the first to usb-c nirvana - they were shipping laptops with thunderbolt in 2011, and moved to usb-c in 2016, giving you four full-capability outputs at a time when most laptops had one , sometimes, and it took another 5 years before most laptops adopted at least one as standard and premium laptops sometimes had two. (People look down on the move to usb-c which I don’t quite get, everyone seems to fawn…

> They were also the first to usb-c nirvana

Intel says hi.

> People look down on the move to usb-c which I don’t quite get

People loved Thunderbolt for replacing Firewire. They hated Apple's choice because these USB-C Macbooks shipped with precisely zero USB-A ports and relegated every user to carrying around a dongle.

The year is 2024, we're almost a decade out from Apple going all-in on USB-C and the predominant peripheral connector is still type-A. I don't like it either, but plugging our ears and pretending like it's not a problem is silly and only makes consumers mad.

> and reminder that in classic usb fashion, usb4 still doesn’t even guarantee Pcie tunneling support.

That is in fact the correct default to use. Ever heard of Thunderspy? https://thunderspy.io/

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

#542

Post by josephg »

talldayo wrote: post #541
paulmd wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were also the first to usb-c nirvana - they were shipping laptops with thunderbolt in 2011, and moved to usb-c in 2016, giving you four full-capability outputs at a time when most laptops had one , sometimes, and it took another 5 years before most laptops adopted at least one as standard and premium laptops sometimes had two. (People look down on the move to usb-c which I don’t quite get, everyone seems to fawn…

> They were also the first to usb-c nirvana Intel says hi. > People look down on the move to usb-c which I don’t quite get People loved Thunderbolt for replacing Firewire. They hated Apple's choice because these USB-C Macbooks shipped with precisely zero USB-A ports and relegated every user to carrying around a dongle. The year is 2024, we're almost a decade out from Apple going all-in on USB-C and the predominant pe…

> Intel says hi.

Intel helped make this move possible, but it doesn’t manufacture laptops. Apple took the heat for “donglegate”.

On the x86 desktop, usb-c is still surprisingly rare. I think my motherboard (that’s less than a year old) only has 2 usb-c ports and 8x usb-a.

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

#543

Post by dwaite »

WiSaGaN wrote: post #169
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.

This gives me the vibe of calling high resolution screens as "retina" screens.

Or AMD calling monitors which meet quality and feature requirements 'FreeSync'

Or Intel calling USB4 devices and cables which meet quality and feature requirements 'Thunderbolt 5'

Compared to, say, manufacturers who aren't willing to meet any certification requirements or to properly implement the standards at play saying they have "USB-A 3.2 2x2 ports" on their motherboards.

Retina doesn't carry the same weight as an industry certification effort like thunderbolt, but it still informs people that a screen actually meets some sort of bar without them having to evaluate pages of tech specs, and reviews saying whether the tech specs are accurate or have undocumented caveats.

Finally, establishing such certifications are difficult - look at the number of failed attempts at creating industry quality/feature marks in the television market.

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

#544

Post by dwaite »

talldayo wrote: post #488
frompom wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 om…

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

They don't market technology, they market solutions. E.g. afib detection on Apple Watch, rather than calling it a BNNS using a custom-built sensor for one-wire EKG.

This is the document where they describe how the solution works, and they clearly state adapters work based on LoRA.

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

#545

Post by dwaite »

jahewson wrote: post #267
wkat4242 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Apple isn't really for the rest of us. Outside of America and a handful wealthy western countries it's for the top 5-20% earners only.

Approximately 33% of all smartphones in the world are iPhones.

Maybe the suspicion is the top 5% carry six smartphones?

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

#546

Post by dwaite »

theshrike79 wrote: post #464
XajniN wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

(I've dabbled in mobile games) Yes. Americans are THE most valuable customer base, y'all use insane amounts of money on mobile crap.

And non-mobile crap. I recently purchased a structure for my backyard on my phone.

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

#547

Post by talldayo »

josephg wrote: post #542
talldayo wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They were also the first to usb-c nirvana Intel says hi. > People look down on the move to usb-c which I don’t quite get People loved Thunderbolt for replacing Firewire. They hated Apple's choice because these USB-C Macbooks shipped with precisely zero USB-A ports and relegated every user to carrying around a dongle. The year is 2024, we're almost a decade out from Apple going all-in on USB-C and the predominant pe…

> Intel says hi. Intel helped make this move possible, but it doesn’t manufacture laptops. Apple took the heat for “donglegate”. On the x86 desktop, usb-c is still surprisingly rare. I think my motherboard (that’s less than a year old) only has 2 usb-c ports and 8x usb-a.

> Intel helped make this move possible, but it doesn’t manufacture laptops. Apple took the heat for “donglegate”.

And rightfully so. They took Intel's technology and told an unprepared and uninterested industry to switch or die. Naturally, very few manufacturers switched over and Apple's all-or-nothing strategy made more people mad than happy.

Having 4 lanes of Thunderbolt connectivity is awesome. It doesn't really fix the fact that none of them can easily connect to a wired keyboard or mouse.

> On the x86 desktop, usb-c is still surprisingly rare.

My motherboard only has one TB connector, everything else is type-A too. Most of the bandwidth is broken out over SATA or PCIe internally, and frankly I don't regret it one bit. 99% of my life, there is nothing plugged into that Thunderbolt port.

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

#548

Post by necovek »

viktorcode wrote: post #434
WiSaGaN wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gives me the vibe of calling high resolution screens as "retina" screens.

Retina means high pixel density, not high resolution. And there are very few standalone displays on the market which can be called “retina”, unfortunately.

Interestingly, I would venture to say that DPI is a measure of resolution: that's the way it's still used in printers or scanners, for example (600 dpi). And retina instead means high angular resolution, or pixels having small arc measures from "appropriate" distances.

The term "resolution" transitioned gradually to mean number-of-individual-lines-rendered horizontally and vertically for displays, but really, the idea is how many dots can you "resolve" (or "resolving power"): a "high resolution" screen or screen mode had a larger number of individual pixels being drawn, which meant that the density is higher. You never talk about a scanner having a resolution of 7200x3600 even if it can scan 12"x6" at 600dpi.

So really, in an informal conversation, I believe both are fine. If you want to be extremely precise, you missed the mark: width and height in pixels is the sanest way to call what you refer to as "resolution".

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

#549

Post by necovek »

necovek wrote: post #548
viktorcode wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retina means high pixel density, not high resolution. And there are very few standalone displays on the market which can be called “retina”, unfortunately.

Interestingly, I would venture to say that DPI is a measure of resolution: that's the way it's still used in printers or scanners, for example (600 dpi). And retina instead means high angular resolution, or pixels having small arc measures from "appropriate" distances. The term "resolution" transitioned gradually to mean number-of-individual-lines-rendered horizontally and vertically for displays, but really, the ide…

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution:

> For device displays such as phones, tablets, monitors and televisions, the use of the term display resolution as defined above is a misnomer, though common. The term display resolution is usually used to mean pixel dimensions, the maximum number of pixels in each dimension (e.g. 1920 × 1080), which does not tell anything about the pixel density of the display on which the image is actually formed: resolution properly refers to the pixel density, the number of pixels per unit distance or area, not the total number of pixels. In digital measurement, the display resolution would be given in pixels per inch (PPI).

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

#550

Post by Aerbil313 »

overstay8930 wrote: post #526
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?

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.

How likely is it that seemingly well-intentioned companies/open source projects like Mullvad, Wireguard, Qubes OS, Monero etc. are infiltrated by the US government?

Or are you talking about the presence of Intel ME and the like in modern hardware?

Post reply on HN