I guess including a Neural Processing Unit in the Apple Silicon chips over 5 years ago is a rushed job today. Machine Learning for the longest time was Apple's more accurate description of what most commenters called AI. In fact suddenly every smart algorithm is labeled AI - when it probably is not. Given the accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard's answers - I would say everybody is rushing out AI and rushing using the AI buzzword.
I would hope Apple will deliver, when its ready, and accurate implementation of AI, when it is ready for each particular application. and how prescient of them to have the architecture to run it on... ( not the learning but the queries ) - already embedded in so many devices
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
I don't believe that it makes any difference today, so why is it that difficult for you to accept that?
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
I don't believe that it makes any difference today, so why is it that difficult for you to accept that?
Have I said it makes a difference one way or another?
I've said what I think and why.
I accept that what people have said about about Apple being behind on this is correct. That is it. I have no idea where things could be in five years nor is it important with regards to what has been said. It's completely irrelevant.
I've reasoned my thinking. There is nothing more to 'accept'.
If someone, lots of folks actually, say that Apple is behind on this, and I agree with the statement and go out of my way to explain why, based on what is true today, why are you pointing to five years from now?
That has absolutely nothing to do with what people are saying. Literally nothing.
It's not that that is 'difficult to accept' it just has nothing to do with what has been claimed.
It's fairly obvious that Apple is rushing out at least a half-baked something in order to claim "we do AI too, just like those other guys," and for the silliest of reasons: Prop up a stock price.
Apple the corporation doesn't get a cent more if the stock goes up, or a penny less if it goes down. But Cook and the rest of the upper management team certainly does, with much of their pay coming in the form of company stock rather than cash. Thus we have these kinds of kneejerk things announced by them now instead of the slow and steady development without broadcasting the internal baby steps that we typically expect from Apple.
It's silly when Samsung/Google/random tech company, responds to some new Apple service or product with "Hey, look what we're working on, it's just as good!" and equally as silly when Apple turns around and does the same thing.
Sarcasm, I assume? Of course, you are smart enough to suspect Apple is close to releasing an edge versions of both LLM and LAM with Apple silicon, which will be pretty impressive.
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
I guess including a Neural Processing Unit in the Apple Silicon chips over 5 years ago is a rushed job today. Machine Learning for the longest time was Apple's more accurate description of what most commenters called AI. In fact suddenly every smart algorithm is labeled AI - when it probably is not. Given the accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard's answers - I would say everybody is rushing out AI and rushing using the AI buzzword.
I would hope Apple will deliver, when its ready, and accurate implementation of AI, when it is ready for each particular application. and how prescient of them to have the architecture to run it on... ( not the learning but the queries ) - already embedded in so many devices
I hope you are right that they will be using the necessary that is already been embedded in so many devices, but they are just as likely to require a new chip. I have an M2 iPad Pro with no desire to upgrade anytime soon however I do want to be able to take part in whatever or Machine Learning Apple has coming. I have seen a lot of speculation that a new chip will be required. That would be a really bad look for Apple for as long as people for example, have been complaining about Siri. Apple owes us nothing, but I think quite a few people would really not take that well.
It's fairly obvious that Apple is rushing out at least a half-baked something in order to claim "we do AI too, just like those other guys," and for the silliest of reasons: Prop up a stock price.
Apple the corporation doesn't get a cent more if the stock goes up, or a penny less if it goes down. But Cook and the rest of the upper management team certainly does, with much of their pay coming in the form of company stock rather than cash. Thus we have these kinds of kneejerk things announced by them now instead of the slow and steady development without broadcasting the internal baby steps that we typically expect from Apple.
It's silly when Samsung/Google/random tech company, responds to some new Apple service or product with "Hey, look what we're working on, it's just as good!" and equally as silly when Apple turns around and does the same thing.
I don’t find that this is what Apple is doing here, let alone that “it’s fairly obvious”. If it were obvious you wouldn’t be the only person in these comments who thinks this…
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
You literallly overhyped 5G early on, berated Apple for being behind on 5G, something on the order of a single year as it turned out, and yet Apple ended up completing the transformation to 5G faster than any other smartphone manufacturer.
It is true today that there is a lot of "breathtaking" beta AI software, and some that is closer to fully baked, and obviously, the industry is evolving very rapidly.
Apple being "late" today, an opinion of yours, is not a reliable indicator that Apple will somehow have missed the AI market measured even a year from now.
What is relevant, is how many "grandmothers" will still be using luzia months, or years from now, and it is quite likely that there will be big techs offering the very same AI chat capability that will become more ubiquitous, and also likely that Apple will be one of them.
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
You literallly overhyped 5G early on, berated Apple for being behind on 5G, something on the order of a single year as it turned out, and yet Apple ended up completing the transformation to 5G faster than any other smartphone manufacturer.
It is true today that there is a lot of "breathtaking" beta AI software, and some that is closer to fully baked, and obviously, the industry is evolving very rapidly.
Apple being "late" today, an opinion of yours, is not a reliable indicator that Apple will somehow have missed the AI market measured even a year from now.
What is relevant, is how many "grandmothers" will still be using Luzia months, or years from now, and it is quite likely that there will be big techs offering the very same AI chat capability that will become more ubiquitous, and also likely that Apple will be one of them.
Do you really believe that Apple isn't going to see all of those 3rd party AI apps on the iPhone?
Why do you insist?
Apple made a HUGE strategic error on 5G.
It was behind on that. Yes. When it finally caught up, it basically dedicated the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
It is behind on AI too. That is it. That is unquestionable today. As in something to show. I don't doubt that WWDC will be an AI love fest but that won't change what I've said.
17 million installs of LuzIA in just two territories is evidence enough that AI isn't a 'geeky' thing. That was the whole point of mentioning it.
AI hasn't been in the news for the last two years for the 'geeks'.
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
You literallly overhyped 5G early on, berated Apple for being behind on 5G, something on the order of a single year as it turned out, and yet Apple ended up completing the transformation to 5G faster than any other smartphone manufacturer.
It is true today that there is a lot of "breathtaking" beta AI software, and some that is closer to fully baked, and obviously, the industry is evolving very rapidly.
Apple being "late" today, an opinion of yours, is not a reliable indicator that Apple will somehow have missed the AI market measured even a year from now.
What is relevant, is how many "grandmothers" will still be using Luzia months, or years from now, and it is quite likely that there will be big techs offering the very same AI chat capability that will become more ubiquitous, and also likely that Apple will be one of them.
Do you really believe that Apple isn't going to see all of those 3rd party AI apps on the iPhone?
Why do you insist?
Apple made a HUGE strategic error on 5G.
It was behind on that. Yes. When it finally caught up, it basically dedicated the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
It is behind on AI too. That is it. That is unquestionable today. As in something to show. I don't doubt that WWDC will be an AI love fest but that won't change what I've said.
17 million installs of LuzIA in just two territories is evidence enough that AI isn't a 'geeky' thing. That was the whole point of mentioning it.
AI hasn't been in the news for the last two years for the 'geeks'.
Apple made no such strategic error on 5G. That's absolutely FUD on your part, and there was zero consequences in the market to coming in a year later than the first Android models. As I stated, Apple made the 5G transition faster than any other smartphone manufacturer. Most people consider the 5G more hype than not as it is.
The worst case, is that Apple continues to have the ability to purchase leading edge modems from Qualcomm, while also investing a sizable amount of resources on creating their own modem.
You as well have argued that TSMC is a huge risk for Apple, not due to potential of invasion, the only risk that I see, but rather natural disaster(s). Needless to state, I posted links that prove that incorrect. Meanwhile, most, if not all, of the principle AI hardware vendors are lining up with TSMC as well, because they have to have leading edge processes.
If you want to talk about strategic errors, look at Huawei's reliance on expensive and less capable semiconductor technology, all because of their obvious close connection to the PRC, an obvious National Security risk to the West.
Meanwhile,
luzia, available on the App Store, so what is Apple missing...
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
You literallly overhyped 5G early on, berated Apple for being behind on 5G, something on the order of a single year as it turned out, and yet Apple ended up completing the transformation to 5G faster than any other smartphone manufacturer.
It is true today that there is a lot of "breathtaking" beta AI software, and some that is closer to fully baked, and obviously, the industry is evolving very rapidly.
Apple being "late" today, an opinion of yours, is not a reliable indicator that Apple will somehow have missed the AI market measured even a year from now.
What is relevant, is how many "grandmothers" will still be using Luzia months, or years from now, and it is quite likely that there will be big techs offering the very same AI chat capability that will become more ubiquitous, and also likely that Apple will be one of them.
Do you really believe that Apple isn't going to see all of those 3rd party AI apps on the iPhone?
Why do you insist?
Apple made a HUGE strategic error on 5G.
It was behind on that. Yes. When it finally caught up, it basically dedicated the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
It is behind on AI too. That is it. That is unquestionable today. As in something to show. I don't doubt that WWDC will be an AI love fest but that won't change what I've said.
17 million installs of LuzIA in just two territories is evidence enough that AI isn't a 'geeky' thing. That was the whole point of mentioning it.
AI hasn't been in the news for the last two years for the 'geeks'.
Apple made no such strategic error on 5G. That's absolutely FUD on your part, and there was zero consequences in the market to coming in a year later than the first Android models. As I stated, Apple made the 5G transition faster than any other smartphone manufacturer. Most people consider the 5G more hype than not as it is.
The worst case, is that Apple continues to have the ability to purchase leading edge modems from Qualcomm, while also investing a sizable amount of resources on creating their own modem.
You as well have argued that TSMC is a huge risk for Apple, not due to potential of invasion, the only risk that I see, but rather natural disaster(s). Needless to state, I posted links that prove that incorrect. Meanwhile, most, if not all, of the principle AI hardware vendors are lining up with TSMC as well, because they have to have leading edge processes.
If you want to talk about strategic errors, look at Huawei's reliance on expensive and less capable semiconductor technology, all because of their obvious close connection to the PRC, an obvious National Security risk to the West.
Meanwhile,
luzia, available on the App Store, so what is Apple missing...
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Open a thread on Apple's 5G strategic errors and I will explain everything AGAIN there.
5G is irrelevant here.
LuzIA on the AppStore is IRRELEVANT too!
I mentioned it only because the post I was replying to (did you even read it?) was portraying AI today as a geek focused technology and not 'seamlessly integrated into our digital lifestyles'.
'geek' or variants on it, were mentioned four times in a short post.
Pointing out just one clear and simple example of AI at the very heart of our digital lifestyles (Instant Messaging) was a sufficient enough counter to that.
And Google has just announced that AI will now hit the soul of modern digital lifestyles: the Google Search bar (something that 'geeks' never ever use).
The most sacred place of Googleness.
TSMC was another HUGE strategic risk for Apple. Please don't try to argue otherwise but please also try to grasp the difference between strategic error and strategic risk.
The claim that 'Apple is behind' is based on what has been released to date. Not on what is happening behind the scenes.
In that sense, and this is unquestionable, Apple is behind.
LOL...the market is being flooded with so-called AI products by all kinds of different companies. That should provide a rather large hint as to the relative difficulty of producing "AI" products, i.e., it's not that difficult. Even if Apple were behind, it wouldn't take very long to catch up. You also have to remember that a lot of these products are just ignoring the rights aspect of the equation in order to even be released. ChatGPT's developers have already admitted that it can't function without using copyrighted content.
Reducing things to ChatGPT or similar is not representive of anything, and ChatGPT itself has still been disruptive in many ways. Many of those positive.
Anyone who has found it helpful has effectively won in their objectives.
They won't have issues with where the underlying data came from.
There is more to this than ChatGPT though. Much more.
Away from generative options, LLM's are being fed all manner of 'clean' data (no rights issues) to work on and are being used all over the place and the 'relative difficulty' of producing those solutions is very, very high.
Cost and compute requirements are extremely high.
More importantly though, the point of Apple being behind still stands.
Catching up is irrelevant. The point is the situation today.
Yeah, not so much.
The point is who is making money on AI 5 years from now. What new companies with exist at that time. What current Big Tech companies will have benefitted.
The barrier to entry in AI is minimal with enough financial backing, which, Apple certainly has in spades.
No. The point is now. Not five years from now.
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
Your behind seems to be stressed about the way Apple is always behind. They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life? They ship that answer... If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late. At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
You literallly overhyped 5G early on, berated Apple for being behind on 5G, something on the order of a single year as it turned out, and yet Apple ended up completing the transformation to 5G faster than any other smartphone manufacturer.
It is true today that there is a lot of "breathtaking" beta AI software, and some that is closer to fully baked, and obviously, the industry is evolving very rapidly.
Apple being "late" today, an opinion of yours, is not a reliable indicator that Apple will somehow have missed the AI market measured even a year from now.
What is relevant, is how many "grandmothers" will still be using Luzia months, or years from now, and it is quite likely that there will be big techs offering the very same AI chat capability that will become more ubiquitous, and also likely that Apple will be one of them.
Do you really believe that Apple isn't going to see all of those 3rd party AI apps on the iPhone?
Why do you insist?
Apple made a HUGE strategic error on 5G.
It was behind on that. Yes. When it finally caught up, it basically dedicated the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
It is behind on AI too. That is it. That is unquestionable today. As in something to show. I don't doubt that WWDC will be an AI love fest but that won't change what I've said.
17 million installs of LuzIA in just two territories is evidence enough that AI isn't a 'geeky' thing. That was the whole point of mentioning it.
AI hasn't been in the news for the last two years for the 'geeks'.
Apple made no such strategic error on 5G. That's absolutely FUD on your part, and there was zero consequences in the market to coming in a year later than the first Android models. As I stated, Apple made the 5G transition faster than any other smartphone manufacturer. Most people consider the 5G more hype than not as it is.
The worst case, is that Apple continues to have the ability to purchase leading edge modems from Qualcomm, while also investing a sizable amount of resources on creating their own modem.
You as well have argued that TSMC is a huge risk for Apple, not due to potential of invasion, the only risk that I see, but rather natural disaster(s). Needless to state, I posted links that prove that incorrect. Meanwhile, most, if not all, of the principle AI hardware vendors are lining up with TSMC as well, because they have to have leading edge processes.
If you want to talk about strategic errors, look at Huawei's reliance on expensive and less capable semiconductor technology, all because of their obvious close connection to the PRC, an obvious National Security risk to the West.
Meanwhile,
luzia, available on the App Store, so what is Apple missing...
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Open a thread on Apple's 5G strategic errors and I will explain everything AGAIN there.
5G is irrelevant here.
LuzIA on the AppStore is IRRELEVANT too!
I mentioned it only because the post I was replying to (did you even read it?) was portraying AI today as a geek focused technology and not 'seamlessly integrated into our digital lifestyles'.
'geek' or variants on it, were mentioned four times in a short post.
Pointing out just one clear and simple example of AI at the very heart of our digital lifestyles (Instant Messaging) was a sufficient enough counter to that.
And Google has just announced that AI will now hit the soul of modern digital lifestyles: the Google Search bar (something that 'geeks' never ever use).
The most sacred place of Googleness.
TSMC was another HUGE strategic risk for Apple. Please don't try to argue otherwise but please also try to grasp the difference between strategic error and strategic risk.
The TSMC-Apple partnership has been one of the defining relationships of the mobile computing era. Without Apple as a predictable, high volume and demanding customer, it is unlikely that TSMC would have been able to catch up to Intel on advanced node semiconductor manufacturing. Similarly, without the support of the TSMC ecosystem, it is unlikely that Apple would have been able to become a pre-eminent chip design house, let alone support the massive manufacturing scale required for its products.
Hyper-argumentative types keep breathing air into trolls and shills who aren't even here to discuss in good faith. Ignore and move on and they will too when they can't get a rise out of anyone.
Comments
Machine Learning for the longest time was Apple's more accurate description of what most commenters called AI.
In fact suddenly every smart algorithm is labeled AI - when it probably is not.
Given the accuracy of ChatGPT and Bard's answers - I would say everybody is rushing out AI and rushing using the AI buzzword.
I would hope Apple will deliver, when its ready, and accurate implementation of AI, when it is ready for each particular application.
and how prescient of them to have the architecture to run it on... ( not the learning but the queries ) - already embedded in so many devices
Apple is behind. That is all anyone has said. That is true. I really can't see why people have an issue accepting that.
Is it really such a big deal to accept that?
I've said what I think and why.
I accept that what people have said about about Apple being behind on this is correct. That is it. I have no idea where things could be in five years nor is it important with regards to what has been said. It's completely irrelevant.
I've reasoned my thinking. There is nothing more to 'accept'.
If someone, lots of folks actually, say that Apple is behind on this, and I agree with the statement and go out of my way to explain why, based on what is true today, why are you pointing to five years from now?
That has absolutely nothing to do with what people are saying. Literally nothing.
It's not that that is 'difficult to accept' it just has nothing to do with what has been claimed.
They aren't shipping ideas people in the known are geeking about out, but their staff are in their geeking out with everyone in that crew. Trying to work out one thing.
How does this seamlessly fit in to an everyday users digital life?
They ship that answer...
If someone beats them (and they clearly haven't) then they'll be market late.
At the moment they are geek-late at worst.
Being geek-late clear hasn't hurt their market position. it really seems to have help them.
It's a simple statement of fact.
'Geek late'?
'Late' , 'behind' , 'not there' , 'rushing to catch up' ...
It does not matter what you want to call it or how you try to justify it.
Generative AI is not 'ideas that people in the know are 'geeking' about'. It is already seamlessly fitting into users' digital lives.
Why do you think the last two years have seen it all over the place?
We can point to some of the quality issues it has brought up. We can question the moral and ethical issues. We can analyse how to control it through legislation etc but it is not some 'geeky' inaccesible tool that regular people don't know how to use (apart from the Apple one mentioned here!). I even have LuzIA installed as a chat contact in WhatsApp! I can chat with 'her'! AI for grandmothers! And not only geeky grandmothers. 17 million installs in Spain/Portugal.
What we can't do is claim Apple isn't behind here.
It is true today that there is a lot of "breathtaking" beta AI software, and some that is closer to fully baked, and obviously, the industry is evolving very rapidly.
Apple being "late" today, an opinion of yours, is not a reliable indicator that Apple will somehow have missed the AI market measured even a year from now.
What is relevant, is how many "grandmothers" will still be using luzia months, or years from now, and it is quite likely that there will be big techs offering the very same AI chat capability that will become more ubiquitous, and also likely that Apple will be one of them.
In case anyone was interested, I posted a link:
https://www.luzia.com/en\
available on the app store
Do you really believe that Apple isn't going to see all of those 3rd party AI apps on the iPhone?
Apple made a HUGE strategic error on 5G.
It was behind on that. Yes. When it finally caught up, it basically dedicated the entire presentation to 5G. That is how important it was.
It is behind on AI too. That is it. That is unquestionable today. As in something to show. I don't doubt that WWDC will be an AI love fest but that won't change what I've said.
17 million installs of LuzIA in just two territories is evidence enough that AI isn't a 'geeky' thing. That was the whole point of mentioning it.
AI hasn't been in the news for the last two years for the 'geeks'.
The worst case, is that Apple continues to have the ability to purchase leading edge modems from Qualcomm, while also investing a sizable amount of resources on creating their own modem.
You as well have argued that TSMC is a huge risk for Apple, not due to potential of invasion, the only risk that I see, but rather natural disaster(s). Needless to state, I posted links that prove that incorrect. Meanwhile, most, if not all, of the principle AI hardware vendors are lining up with TSMC as well, because they have to have leading edge processes.
If you want to talk about strategic errors, look at Huawei's reliance on expensive and less capable semiconductor technology, all because of their obvious close connection to the PRC, an obvious National Security risk to the West.
Meanwhile,
luzia, available on the App Store, so what is Apple missing...
Open a thread on Apple's 5G strategic errors and I will explain everything AGAIN there.
5G is irrelevant here.
LuzIA on the AppStore is IRRELEVANT too!
I mentioned it only because the post I was replying to (did you even read it?) was portraying AI today as a geek focused technology and not 'seamlessly integrated into our digital lifestyles'.
'geek' or variants on it, were mentioned four times in a short post.
Pointing out just one clear and simple example of AI at the very heart of our digital lifestyles (Instant Messaging) was a sufficient enough counter to that.
And Google has just announced that AI will now hit the soul of modern digital lifestyles: the Google Search bar (something that 'geeks' never ever use).
The most sacred place of Googleness.
TSMC was another HUGE strategic risk for Apple. Please don't try to argue otherwise but please also try to grasp the difference between strategic error and strategic risk.
https://semiconductor.substack.com/p/the-apple-tsmc-partnership
Keep on trucking with your flimsy arguments....