macplusplus

blastdoor said:

Apple employs very smart people and is definitely a leading technology company. They are not behind in that regard.

But they are behind in integrating those technologies into a compelling AI product — that is, a truly useful product that people and organizations are willing to pay for. 

They can certainly catch up, but it’s delusional to assert they aren’t behind.

Actually it is delusional to assert that they are behind.
Apple simply raises the bar. And that, to the correct and required levels.
Ask any LLM their position regarding any of the papers / problems mentioned above, and let’s see their answers. That will help to evaluate whether Apple is behind or not.

canukstorm said:

macplusplus said:

More personalized Siri... Easy to utter, extremely hard to conceive and implement. The biggest drawback of current LLMs is their lack of "context retention". Ask any of the most powerful LLMs they will list that among their limitations. Even in a single session they have difficulty on maintaining an established response pattern in repetitive tasks. A Siri that responds with a different personality everytime is intolerable. Maintaining the context is crucial even for an avatar-level "personality". Apple's refusal of a premature jump lnto the "AI smartphone" bandwagon has certainly serious technical reasons. Remember that Apple has already laid out a very solid foundation with the A18 chip designed specifically to run on-device LLMs, and before that, the Neural Engine. In that sense, the "lack of context" shared by Gruber and the author is even more amazing than that of LLMs.

"Remember that Apple has already laid out a very solid foundation with the A18 chip designed specifically to run on-device LLMs, and before that, the Neural Engine"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Apple's lost trust.  It's their job now, to earn it back.

Here is your extraordinary evidence: Apple Vision Pro. It took so many years to develop. They've made it. Whether it sells or not is another issue. It works...

More personalized Siri... Easy to utter, extremely hard to conceive and implement. The biggest drawback of current LLMs is their lack of "context retention". Ask any of the most powerful LLMs they will list that among their limitations. Even in a single session they have difficulty on maintaining an established response pattern in repetitive tasks. A Siri that responds with a different personality everytime is intolerable. Maintaining the context is crucial even for an avatar-level "personality". Apple's refusal of a premature jump lnto the "AI smartphone" bandwagon has certainly serious technical reasons. Remember that Apple has already laid out a very solid foundation with the A18 chip designed specifically to run on-device LLMs, and before that, the Neural Engine. In that sense, the "lack of context" shared by Gruber and the author is even more amazing than that of LLMs.

iOSDevSWE said:

The article lacks fact checking and details like when were the tests conducted either OpenAIs models and which model was used. When I perform the request I get the following answer from chatGPT 4o:

Question: ” Oliver picks 44 kiwis on Friday. Then he picks 58 kiwis on Saturday. On Sunday, he picks double the number of kiwis he did on Friday. Of the kiwis picked on Sunday, five of them were a bit smaller than average. How many kiwis does Oliver have?”

Answer: “ Let’s break this down:

• On Friday, Oliver picks 44 kiwis.

• On Saturday, he picks 58 kiwis.

• On Sunday, he picks double the number of kiwis he did on Friday, so he picks  44 \times 2 = 88  kiwis.

The total number of kiwis he picks is:

44 \text{ (Friday)} + 58 \text{ (Saturday)} + 88 \text{ (Sunday)} = 190 \text{ kiwis.}

So, Oliver has 190 kiwis in total. The fact that five of the kiwis picked on Sunday are smaller doesn’t affect the total number.”

Perfect answer!

The wrong answer comes from o1-mini, not from GPT-4o. No mention of GPT-4o in the article.

The most important measure is omitted in the article: Disable "Open safe flies after downloading" option in Safari. There is no "safe file" on the Internet. This is Apple's fault to maintain this expression and to keep that option enabled, even restoring it after every update. Even experienced Mac users may not always prevent the automatic download of a malicious .dmg or .pkg file. Such downloads occur during javascript redirects triggered by malicious ads. So the Downloads folder must be checked frequently and any unknown file must be trashed or quarantined.

Edit: you don't even need to click the malicious ad. Just the display of it may trigger the automatic download.