OpenAI and Apple Announce Partnership
openai.com
openai.com
Apple clearly thinks it needs a dedicated LLM service atm. But still thinks it is only supplemental as they handle a bunch of the core stuff without it. And require explicit user consent to use OpenAI. And Apple clearly views it as a partial commodity since they even said they plan to add others.
Tough to bet against OpenAI right now...but this deal does not feel like a 10 year deal...
* The CEO of a three trillion dollar company that employs 100,000+ of the best talent you could find around the world, with the best lawyers in the world one phone call away. Also, one of the best performing CEOs in modern times.
AND
* The CEO of the AI company (ok ... non-profit) that pretty much brought up the current wave of AI to existence and who has also spent the best part of its life building and growing 1,000s of startups in SF.
Lol.
I could buy that argument about Jobs. Cook is just a guy with a title. He follows rules and doesn't get fired, but otherwise does everything he can with all the resources at his disposal to make as much money as possible. Given those same constraints and resources, most people with an IQ above 120 would do as well. Apple is an institution unto itself, and you'd have to repeatedly, rapidly, and diabolically corrupt many, many layers of corporate protections to hurt the company intentionally. Instead, what we see is simple complacency and bureaucracy chipping away at any innovative edge that Apple might once have had.
Maintenance and steady piloting is a far different skillset than innovation and creation.
Make no mistake, Cook won the lottery. He knew the right people, worked the right jobs, never screwed up anything big, and was at the right place at the right time to land where he is. Good for him, but let's not pretend he got where he is through preternatural skill or competence.
I know it's a silicon valley trope and all, but the c-class mythos is so patently absurd. Most of the best leaders just do their best to not screw up. Ones that actually bring an unusual amount of value or intellect to the table are rare. Cook is a dime a dozen.
In any case, "dime a dozen" doesn't do him justice -- he was very accomplished, in ways you can't fake, before becoming CEO.
There's a tendency to exaggerate the qualities of men in positions like this. There's nothing inherent to their positions requiring greatness or incredible merit. The extraordinary events already happened; their job is to simply not screw it up, and our system is such that you'd have to try really, really hard to have any noticeable impact, let alone actually hurt a company before the institution itself cuts you out. Those lawyers are a significant part of the organism of a modern mega corporation; they're the substrate upon which the algorithm that is a corporation is running. One of the defenses modern corporations employ is to limit the impact any individual in the organization can have, positive or otherwise, and to employ intense scrutiny and certainty of action commensurate with the power of a position.
Throw Cook into an start-up arena against Musk, Gates, Altman, Jobs, Buffet, etc, and he'd get eaten alive. Cook isn't the scrappy, agile, innovative, ruthless start-up CEO. He's the complacent, steady, predictable institutional CEO coasting on the laurels of his betters, shielded from the trials they faced through the sheer inertia of the organization he currently helms.
They're different types of leaders for different phases of the megacorp organism, and it's OK that Cook isn't Jobs 2.0 - that level of wildness and unpredictability that makes those types of leaders their fortunes can also result in the downfall of their companies. Musk acts with more freedom; the variance in behavior results in a variance of fortunes. Apple is more stable because of Cook, but it's not because he's particularly special. Simply steady and sane.
This is absolutely true. But that doesn’t imply that Tim Cook is so unexceptional that anyone with a 120 IQ could do the same job he does. The fact that Steve Jobs himself trusted Cook as his right hand man and successor when Apple probably has literally thousands of employees with at least a 120 IQ should be a sign of that.
Partly because little of this is really a question of intelligence. If you want to talk about it in psychometric terms, based on what I’ve read about the man he also seems to have extraordinarily high trait conscientiousness and extraordinarily low trait neuroticism. The latter of the two actually seems extremely common among corporate executive types—one gets the sense from their weirdly flat and level affect that they are preternaturally unflappable. (Mitt Romney also comes across this way.) I don’t recall where I read this, but I remember reading Jobs being quoted once that Cook was a better negotiator that he was because unlike Jobs, Cook never lost his cool. This isn’t the sign of an unexceptional person, just a person who is exceptional in a much different way than someone like Steve Jobs. And, contrary to what you claim at the top of your comment, someone like Tim Cook is pretty distinguishable from someone like Steve Ballmer in the sense that Ballmer didn’t actually do a good job running Microsoft. I don’t know if that was related to his more exuberant personality—being a weirdly unflappable corporate terminator isn’t the only path to success—but it is a point against these guys being fungible.
I'm on the side of culture. That's what I see with most of the business leaders.
This is quite ridiculous. "Developers x3" Ballmer would have face-planted at Apple. He only coasted so far at Microsoft because Gates had already won the platform war.
For example, when they say "requests are not stored by OpenAI," I have to wonder how they define "requests," and whether a request not having been stored by OpenAI means that the request data is not accessible or even outright owned by OpenAI. If Apple writes request data to an S3 bucket owned by OpenAI, it's still defensible to say that OpenAI didn't store the request. I'm not saying that's the case; my point is that I don't trust these parties and I don't see a reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.
The freakiest thing about it is that I probably have no way to prevent this AI integration from being installed on my devices. How could that be the case if there was no profit being extracted from my data? Why would they spend untold amounts on this deal and forcibly install expensive software on my personal devices at no cost to me? The obvious answer is that there is a cost to me, it's just not an immediate debit from my bank account.
Is how I interpret that. It's similar to that OneDrive language which was basically allowing user directed privacy invasion.
Inevitably,openai will consume and regurgitate all data it touches.
It is not clean and anyone thinking openai won't brutalize your data for it's race to general AI is delusional in one of several ways.
The question is, is it encrypted E2E everywhere, how controlled is it on device, how often is it purged.
The ubiquity of cloud means theres a huge privacy attack.surface and unclear how much ofvthat is auditable.
Lastly, theres no reason to think Apple will avoid enshittification as the value of their ecosystem and users grow.
Just takes one bad quarter and a greedy MBA to tear down the walls.
Past privacy protection is no Guarantee of future protection.
What's the worst possible interpretation of Apple and CloudFlare's iCloud Private Relay?
But goddamn they absolutely leapfrogged Google and Apple and it’s completely amazing to see these trillion dollar companies play catch-up with a start-up.
I want to see more of this. Big Tech has been holding back innovation for too long.
Apple's focus has long been on a lifestyle product experience across their portfolio of hardware, and Apple Intelligence appears to be focused exactly on that in a way that has little overlap with OpenAI's offerings. The partnership agreement announced today is just outsourcing an accessory tool to a popular and suitably scaled vendor, the same as they did for web search and social network integration in the past. Nobody's leapfrogging anybody between these two because they're on totally different paths.
Having Siri answer your trivia question about whale songs, or suggest a Pad Thai recipe modification when you ran out of soy sauce, is just not where they see the value. Poor web search has been an easy critique to weigh against Siri for the last many years, and the ChatGPT integration (and Apple's own local prompt prep) should fare far better than that, but it doesn't have any relevance to "leapfrogging" because the two companies just aren't trying to do the same thing.
And it's not just web search! Siri's context is abysmal. My dad routinely has to correct the spelling of his own name. It's a common name, there are multiple spellings, but it's his phone!
Call it whatever you want.
Google had technical founders, now it’s run by MBAs and they are having a Kodak Moment.
I think Apple's ultimate goal is to move as much of the AI functionality as possible on-device.
> Apple demoed other generative features beyond the OpenAI integration and said it plans to announce support for other AI models in the future.
LLMs are not accurate, they aren't subject matter experts that'll be maybe within 5% error margin.
People will gradually learn and discover anf the cost of keeping a model updated and running won't drastically reduce so we'll most likely see dust settling down.
this is particularly evident with image generation, but I think it's true across the board. for example, you may think something I created on midjourney "looks amazing", whereas I may dislike it because it's so far from what I had in mind and was actually trying to accomplish when I was sending in my prompt
One can find anything YOU produce to have different qualities from you.
In other words, there are two different objectives in a "drawing": (1) portraying that which I meant to portray and (2) making it aesthetically appealing
People who only see the finished product may be impressed by #2 and never consider how bad I was at #1
It's like a graphics designer being limited to chose between local MS Paint, and Adobe Creative Cloud. Okay, so Llama 3 8B, if it's really as good as you say, graduates to local Paint.NET. Not useless per se, but still not even in the same class.
Llama 8B is ChatGPT 3.5 (18 months before L3), running on all new iPhones released since October 2022, (19 months before L3). That includes multimodal variants (built outside Facebook).
Alternatively synthetic data might drive the next generation of models, but that's largely untested at this point.
On the same token, those of us who are sufficiently motivated can maintain and utilize a local copy of Wikipedia…frequently for training LLMs at this point, so I guess the snake has come around, and we’ve settled into a full-on ouroboros of digital media hype. ;-)
Then, when I’m downstairs in my office and want to listen to music on my iPhone. I want my headphones to connect to my iPhone and not my TV upstairs!
I don’t need Skynet, I just need my devices to be a little less stupid.
I would consider that akin to magic at this point. Let’s start there and work our way up to handing over control of our nuclear arsenal.
You're asserting that the AI features will be removed in 3 to 5 years because they're not accurate enough today, but you actually need them to remain inaccurate in 3 years time for your prediction to be correct.
That seems unlikely. I agree that people will start to realize the cost, but the accuracy will improve, so people might be willing to pay.
An LLM that gives you a detailed plan for removing a stubborn stain in your toilet that involves mixing the wrong combination of drain cleaners and accidentally releasing chlorine, is going to happen if it hasn't already, but a lot of people will read about this and go "oh, I didn't know you could gas yourself like that" and then continue to ask the same model for recipes or Norwegian wedding poetry because "what could possibly go wrong?"
And if you wonder how anyone can possibly read about such a story and react that way, remember that Yann LeCun says this kind of thing despite (a) working for Facebook and (b) Facebook's algorithm gets flack not only for the current teen depression epidemic, but also from the UN for not doing enough to stop the (ongoing) genocide in Myanmar.
It's a cognitive blind spot of some kind. Plenty smart, still can't recognise the connection.
Someone’s going to accidentally kill themselves based on an AI hallucination soon if no one has already.
In the US it's different, because the US' FSD has nothing to do with the capabilities of the FSD in Europe (which is some sort of glorified driver assist), and it can clear navigate in many streets.
Mercedes in the US is very limited.
Forget about a model that knows EVERYTHING. Let's just train a model that only is expert in not all the law of United states just one state and not even that, just understands FULLY the tax law of just one state to the extent that whatever documents you throw at it, it beats a tax consultancy firm every single time.
If even that were possible, OpenAI et.el would be playing this game differently.
Is this standard applied to any other app?
My app is powered by GTPChatChat, the model beating all artificially curated benchmarks.
Still wanna buy?
An employee can be held accountable, and fired easily. An AI? You'll have to talk to the Account Manager, and sit through their attempts to 'retain' you.
Two years ago they output a solution for my query [1] right away, now they try to engage user to implement that thing. This is across the board, as far as I can see.
These LLMs are not about helping anyone, their goals are engagement and mining data for that engagement.
[1] The query is "implement blocked clause decomposition in haskell." There are papers (circa 2010-2012), there are implementations, but not in Haskell. BCD, itself, is easy, and can be expressed in a dozen-two lines of Haskell code.
Wow, this is a really interesting idea! A sneaky play for LLM providers is to be helpful enough to still be used, but also sufficiently unhelpful that your users give you additional training data.
Now instead of having some answer right away, the user has to engage in discussion, which increases the cost that is sunk into the work with LLMs.
The Gell Mann amnesia effect suggests people will have a very hard time noticing the difference. Even if the models never improve, they're more accurate than a lot of newspaper reporting.
> People will gradually learn and discover anf the cost of keeping a model updated and running won't drastically reduce so we'll most likely see dust settling down.
So, you're betting on no significant cost reduction of compute hardware? Seems implausible to me.
This is not about compute, but about data.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04125
"...our study reveals an exponential need for training data which implies that the key to "zero-shot" generalization capabilities under large-scale training paradigms remains to be found."
Is that when they’re cribbing straight out of the newspaper pages, or is this just a cynical snipe at the poor state of media that, not for nothing, tech companies have had a fair hand in kneecapping?
"""I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."""
- Thomas Jefferson (not Mark Twain), 1807, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-twain-read-newspaper-...
As mentioned elsewhere, 3 to 5 years is some 3x to 5x as long as GPT-4 exists; some 2-3x as long as ChatGPT exists and LLMs suddenly graduated from being obscure research projects to general-purpose tools. Do you really believe the capability limit has already been hit?
Not to mention, there's lots of money and reputation invested in searching for alternatives to current transformer architecture. Are you certain that within the next year or two, one or more of the alternatives won't pan out, bringing e.g. linear scaling in place of quadratic, without loss of capabilities?
As for money and reputation, that's a lot behind gold making too in medieval times and look where that lead too.
Scientific optimism is a thinking distortion and a fallacy too.
I’m not trying to downplay its potential, but I don’t know of anyone who trusts it enough for what I’d consider “tooling”.
Had Google become a utility and frozen it's search engine half a decade or more in the past, we would actually have something you could add AI on top of and come out with an improved product.
As it stands, capitalism isn't going to fix GIGO with AI
I think 4o is free because GPT3.5 was so relatively bad it means people are constantly claiming LLMs can't do things that 4 does just fine.
I'm quite skeptical of Apple.
Jensen Huang must be having the time of his life right now. Nvidia's relationship with Apple went from pariah to prodigal son, real fast.
I just don't understand how they can compete on their own merits without purpose-built silicon; the M2 Ultra doesn't shine a candle to a single GB200. Once you consider how Nvidia's offerings are networked with Mellanox and CUDA universal memory, it feels like the only advantage Apple has in the space is setting their own prices. If they want to be competitive, I don't think they're going to be training Apple models on Apple Silicon.
NASDAQ average P:E - 31
NVidia's P:E - 71
That's a market of 1 vendor. That's ripe for attack.
You see, I want to live in a world where GPU manufacturers aren't perpetually hostile against each other. Even Nvidia would, judging by their decorum with Khronos. Unfortunately, some manufacturers would rather watch the world burn than work together for the common good. Even if a perfect CUDA replacement existed like it did with DXVK and DirectX, Apple will ignore and deny it while marketing something else to their customers. We've watched this happen for years, and it's why MacOS perennially cannot run many games or reliably support Open Source software. It is because Apple is an unreasonably fickle OEM, and their users constantly pay the price for Apple's arbitrary and unnecessary isolationism.
Apple thinks they can disrupt AI? It's going to be like watching Stalin try to disrupt Wal-Mart.
That's entirely the fault of AMD and Intel fumbling the ball in front of the other team's goal.
For ages the only accelerated backend supported by PyTorch and TF was CUDA. Whose fault was that? Then there was buggy support for a subset of operations for a while. Then everyone stopped caring.
Why I think it will go different this time: nVidia's competitors seem to have finally woken up and realized they need to support high level ML frameworks. "Apple Silicon" is essentially fully supported by PyTorch these days (via the "mps" backend). I've heard OpenCL works well now too, but have no hardware to test it on.
it's just a monopoly [1] , how hard can it be?
/s
- [1] practically, because of how widespread cuda is
…though it took two solid decades to even make a dent in x86.
If you're saying Apple is going to 'take on nvidia' in edge inference, then I don't disagree but I would hardly even count that as taking on nvidia.
It took almost a decade but the PA Semi acquisition showed that Apple was able to get out of the shadow of its PowerPC era.
Nvidia will remain a leader in this space for a long time. But things are going to play out wonky and Apple, when determined, are actually pretty good at executing on longer-term roadmaps.
I think Apple is going to make rapid and substantial advancements in on-device AI-specific hardware. I also think nVIDIA is going to continue to dominate the cloud infrastructure space for training foundational models for the foreseeable future, and serving user-facing LLM workloads for a long time as well.
You seem to be positioning this as a Ford vs Chevy duel, when (to me at least) the comparison should be to Ford vs Exxon.
Nvidia is an infrastructure company. And a darned good one. Apple is a user facing company and has outsourced infrastructure for decades (AWS & Azure being two of the well known ones).
The only way it hurts Nvidia is if Apple becomes the runaway leader of the pc market. Even then, Apple hasn’t shown any intent of selling GPUs or AI processors to the likes of AWS, or Azure or Oracle, etc.
Nvidia has a much bigger threat from with Intel/AMD or the cloud providers backward integrating and then not buying Nvidia chips. Again, no signs that Apple wants to do this.
For that they would have to develop servers that has a mass amount of whatever it is or sell the chips in the same manner Nvidia does today.
I dont see that future for Apple.
Microsoft / Google / or other major cloud companies would do extremely well if they could develop it and just keep it as a major win for their cloud products.
Azure is running OpenAI as far as I have heard.
Imagine if M$ made a crazy fast GPU/whatever. It would be a huge competitive advantage.
Can it happen? I dont think so.
So all in all, not sure if it's that great for Nvidia.
What would not have been positive for Nvidia is Apple saying they've adapted their HW to server chips and would be partnering with OpenAI to leverage them, but that didn't happen. Apple is busy handing cash back to investors and not seriously pursuing anything but inference.
Edit: unless I misunderstood and they meant only inference.
people on HN routinely seem to overestimate Apple's capabilities
e: in fact, iirc just last month Apple released a paper unveiling their 'OpenElm' language models and they were all trained on nvidia hardware
I'm sure OpenAI will need to beef up their hardware to handle these requests - even as filtered down as they are - coming from all of the Apple users that will now be prompting calls to ChatGPT.
If Apple currently ships a single product with better AI performance-per-watt than Blackwell, I will eat my hat.
> These models run on servers powered by Apple silicon [...]
That doesn't mean that there are no Nvidia GPUs in these servers, of course.
Nvidia's GPUs are complex. They have a lot of dedicated, multipurpose acceleration hardware inside of them, and then they use CUDA to tie all those pieces together. Apple's GPUs are kinda the opposite way; they're extremely simple and optimized for low-power raster compute. Which isn't bad at all, for mobile! It just gimps them design-wise when they go up against purpose-built accelerators.
If we see Apple do custom Apple Silicon for the datacenter, it will be a pretty radically new design. The first thing they need is good networking; a full-size Nvidia cluster will use Mellanox Infiniband to connect dozens of servers at Tb/s speeds. So Apple would need a similar connectivity solution, at least to compete. The GPU would need to be bigger and probably higher-wattage, and the CPU should really emphasize core count over single-threaded performance. If they play their cards right there, they would have an Apple Silicon competitor to the Grace superchip and GB200 GPU.
No they don't. They say that the Secure Enclave participates in the secure boot chain, and in generating non-exportable keys used for secured transport. It reads to me as though user devices will encrypt requests to the keys held in the Secure Enclave of a subset of PCC nodes. A PCC node that receives the encrypted request will use the Secure Enclave to decrypt the payload. At that point, the general-purpose Application Processor in the PCC node has a cleartext copy of the user request for doing the needful inference, which _could_ be done on an NVidia GPU, but appears to be done on general-purpose Apple Silicon.
There is no suggestion that the user request is processed entirely within the Secure Enclave. The Secure Enclave is a cryptographic coprocessor. It almost certainly doesn't have the grunt to do inference.
They are the first ones to ship on-device inference at scale on non-nvidia hardware. Apple also has the means to build data center training hardware using apple silicon if they want to do so.
If they are serious about the OAI partnership they could also start to supply them with cloud inference hardware and strongarm them into only using apple servers to serve iOS requests.
i'm seeing people all over this thread saying stuff like that, it reads like fantasyland to me. Apple doesn't have the talent or the chips or suppliers or really any of the capabilities to do this, where are people getting it from?
Their ability to design a chip and networking fabric which is fast/efficient at training a narrow set of model architecture is not far fetched by any means.
> If they are serious about the OAI partnership they could also start to supply them with cloud inference hardware and strongarm them into only using apple servers to serve iOS requests
Apple addressed both these points in today’s preso.
1. They will send requests that require larger contexts to their own Apple Silicon-based servers that will provide Apple devices a new product platform called Private Cloud Compute.
2. Apple’s OS generative AI request APIs won’t even talk to cloud compute resources that do not attest to infrastructure that has a publicly available privacy audit.
You’re absolutely right. I got too excited about Apple’s strategy to encourage developers to use Apple Private Cloud Compute.
The UX for ChatGPT as shown for iOS 18 makes it obvious that you are sending data outside the Apple Silicon walled garden.
Which is neat, but it's not CUDA. It's an application-specific accelerator good at a small subset of operations, controlled by a high-level library the industry is unfamiliar with and too underpowered to run LLMs or image generators. The NPU is a novelty, and today's presentation more-or-less confirmed how useless it is for rich local-only operations.
> Apple also has the means to build data center training hardware using apple silicon if they want to do so.
They could, but that's not a competitor against an NVL72 with hundreds of terabytes of unified GPU memory. And then they would need a CUDA competitor, which could either mean reviving OpenCL's rotting corpse, adopting Tensorflow/Pytorch like a sane and well-reasoned company, or reinventing the wheel with an extra library/Accelerate Framework/MPS solution that nobody knows about and has to convert models to use.
So they can make servers, but Xserve showed us pretty clearly that you can lead a sysadmin to MacOS but you can't make them use it.
> they could also start to supply them with cloud inference hardware and strongarm them into only using apple servers to serve iOS requests.
I wonder how much money they would lose doing that, over just using the industry-standard Nvidia servers. Once you factor in the margins they would have made selling those chips as consumer systems, it's probably in the tens-of-millions.
Users absolutely don't care if their prompt response has been generated by a CUDA kernel or some poorly documented apple specific silicon a poor team at cupertino almost lost their sanity to while porting the model.
And haven't they already spent quite a bit on money on their pytorch-like MLX framework?
They most certainly will. If you run GPT-4o on an iPhone with MLX, it will suck. Users will tell you it sucks, and they won't do so in developer-specific terms.
The entire point of this thread is that Apple can't make users happy with their Neural Engine. They require a stopgap cloud solution to make up for the lack of local power on iPhone.
> And haven't they already spent quite a bit on money on their pytorch-like MLX framework?
As well as Accelerate Framework, Metal Performance Shaders and previously, OpenCL. Apple can't decide where to focus their efforts, least of which in a way that threatens CUDA as a platform.
Inference can run without it, and could so for years via ONNX. Now we are starting to see more back-ends becoming available.
But the point stands, these systems occupy a niche that Apple Silicon is poorly suited to filling. They run normal Linux, they support common APIs, and network to dozens of other machines using Infiniband.
This is Apple's favorite thing in the world. They already have an Apple-Silicon-only ML framework as of a few months ago, called MLX. Does anyone know about it? No. Do you need to convert models to use it? Yes.
It's not especially big news for Nvidia at all.
current situation is like nvidia devs using macs at work giving mr cook some satisfaction or something.
In today's WWDC presentation, there were a few small examples of Siri improvements, such as an ability to maintain context, e.g., 'Add her flight arrival time to my calendar,' wherein Siri knows who "her" refers to.
In my day-to-day experience with Siri, it's clear Siri doesn't have the kind of ability to understand language that LLMs provide. It still feels like clever son-of-Eliza hacks with stock phrases. If your utterance doesn't match with a pre-programmed stock phrase, it doesn't work. The other day I said something like "Play the song you played before the one I asked you to skip," and Siri didn't seem to know what I wanted. OTOH, GPT4o can easily handle statements like that.
Does anyone know to what extent Siri's underlying language models are being upgraded?
Didn't Cortana do this? Pretty underwhelming in 2024.
I think that Apple demoed this today where the presenter changed her mind mid-sentence during a weather query.
I'm hopeful that means they've added a LLM to interpret the intent of user requests.
All it takes to make a qualitatively better voice assistant would be to give GPT-4 a spec of functions representing things it can do on your phone, and integrating that with the OS. So why none of the companies bothered to do it? For that matter, I wonder why OpenAI didn't extend the ChatGPT app in this direction?
It sounds like a bigger update, where they’re applying gen AI models more broadly across tons of things (including I things like photo categorization), but I guess we’ll see.
Though a bit of that is premised on whether it could extract information from google maps.
Huh? Seems like an odd thing to feel the need to ask, as up until last year, the answer was always, "Only if you're driving through Oregon or New Jersey".
Now, you're only unable to pump your own in NJ.
What kind of trip was this where these were pertinent questions? Couldn't you have just rephrased most of them?
"What is my current location?"
"Show maps."
"Which states don't allow you to pump your own gas?"
I stopped using GPT4 because it would just yap on and on about things I don't want in the response. Claude 3 responses feel way more human like because it response with similar information a human would and not with a bunch of unneeded gibber.
By the time this roles out at the end of the year who knows what models would be the best. Why bet on one company's models? We have seen how fast open source models have caught up to GPT4. Why put all your chips into one basket?
Anthropic could be 10X better, and it still wouldn't matter to customers and public market investors as much as hearing the name 'ChatGPT.' Your mom has never heard of Anthropic.
People think Google won search because they had the best search engine. Yes, they did for a brief period before others implemented similar methods to pagerank (which itself was ripped off from the Baidu founder). But the reason they won the market is because of endless media coverage around them building the brand into a household verb. After that, it was impossible for anyone to compete.
"Just ask ChatGPT" will forever be the "Just Google it" of AI, and any media drama surrounding OpenAI only serves to cement that status.
personally i like it and want it, except in places where it is shoehorned
It excels in "transfering style from one thing to another thing" basically.
However every time I asked it a factual thing that I couldn't find on Google, it was always hilariously wrong
It is for everyone and the rest of us. Like it or not.
"AI" cannot be stopped.
For example: https://chatgpt.com/share/4a31c79b-a380-4fa0-9808-8145e3cfb4...
LLMs are very useful and very helpful, certainly more helpful than ony searching the web. Watching people apply the crypto lens to it is unfortunate for them, it's not a waste of electricity like most crypto, and it isn't useless output.
Having a single extremely large customer gives that customer a disproportionate amount of power over your business. Apple can decide one day to simply stop paying you because, hey, they can afford the years of litigation to resolve it. Can you weather than storm?
Famously, Benjamin Moore (the paint company) maintains its own stores. They have not (and probably will not) sell their products through Home Depot or Lowe's. Why? This exact reason. A large customer can dictate terms and hold you over a barrel if they so choose.
AI/ML is something Apple cares about. They've designed their own chips around speeding up ML processing on the device. A partnerhship with OpenAI is clearly a stopgap measure. They will absolutely gut OpenAI if they have the opportunity and they will absolutely replace OpenAI when they can.
Apple just doesn't like relying on partners for core functionality. It's why Apple ditched Google Maps for the (still inferior) Apple Maps. The only reason they can't replace Google Search is because Google pays them a boatload of money and they've simply been unable to.
This may seem like a good move for OpenAI but all they've done is let the foxes run the hen house.
Apple is just racing to integrate AI into its current compute platform as fast possible.
OpenAI definitely believes a smart enough AI (AGI, ASI) will solve way bigger problems or create essentially a brand new compute platform.
Heck, ChatGPT as a lame LLM is almost its own compute platform already.
Apple is just speeding up people getting used to not needing apps and fancy devices vs simply communicating with an agent.
Who really will need Apple in 10-15 years if AI really does get good enough then?
> Apple can decide one day to simply stop paying you because, hey, they can afford the years of litigation to resolve it.
OpenAI and Microsoft also can do the same. Microsoft would be ecstatic to hurt Apple in any way. Also Apple has also no history of doing this with any of the providers they use.
> Benjamin Moore (the paint company) maintains its own stores. They have not (and probably will not) sell their products through Home Depot or Lowe's. Why?
Because Home Depot has their own brand, Behr. Each Behr color explicitly says what Benjamin Moore color it's copying, and they take 100% of the revenue as a direct alternative. Do you have any sources on this being a Benjamin Moore decision?
> It's why Apple ditched Google Maps for the (still inferior) Apple Maps.
How do you define "still inferior"? How many times a day do you use Apple Maps? Do you have any benchmarks that compare the two?
So does this mean that by default, a random Apple user won't have their ChatGPT requests used for OpenAI training, but a paying ChatGPT Plus customer will?
Does this also mean that if I connect my ChatGPT Plus account that my data will be used for training?
It just seems strange to have a lower bar for privacy for paying customers vs users acquired via a partnership.
(yes I'm aware that the "Temporary Chat" feature or turning off memory will prevent data being used for training)
“To disable model training, navigate to your profile icon on the bottom-left of the page and select Settings > Data Controls, and disable “Improve the model for everyone." While this is disabled, new conversations won’t be used to train our models”
April 25, 2024: "To disable chat history and model training, navigate to ChatGPT > Settings > Data Controls and disable Chat history & training. While history is disabled, new conversations won’t be used to train and improve our models, and won’t appear in the history sidebar. To monitor for abuse, we will retain all conversations for 30 days before permanently deleting." https://web.archive.org/web/20240425194703/https://help.open...
May 02, 2024: "To disable model training, navigate to your profile icon on the bottom-left of the page and select Settings > Data Controls, and disable “Improve the model for everyone.“ While this is disabled, new conversations won’t be used to train our models." https://web.archive.org/web/20240502203525/https://help.open...
That must be some really detailed 100+ pages contract.
I bet Microsoft is mentioned multiple times with things to the effect of: "Under no condition is Microsoft allowed to access any of the data coming from iPhones."
Microsoft is mostly a cloud company these days though, and they're already an Apple vendor.
> Apple users are asked before any questions are sent to ChatGPT,
Sets appointment for 10pm
Will the Siri team be fired or are they in charge of openAI integration?
Or it may create an appointment at Athens.
Personally, 12h clock always confused me, so I wouldn't blame Siri.
With all the neural this and that bits baked into apple silicon, it has seemed [0] for a while that Apple wanted to run all these workloads locally, but this partnership seems like a significant privacy backslide.
Another comment in this thread said something about they’re using b Apple silicon for these workloads, but didn’t give an indication of whether that silicon lives in Apple datacenters or OpenAI ones.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38725167~~
edit: I should have mentioned that I didn’t have a chance to watch the video yet; a reply to my comment mentioned that it’s addressed in the video so I’ll go watch that later
The OpenAI partnership is seemingly only if Siri decides it doesn't have the full context needed to answer. (E.g. if you ask something very creative/generative.) At that point, Siri says "hey, chatGPT might be better at answering this, do you consent to me sending your prompt to them?" and then you get to choose. Apple's partnership also seems to include the various settings that prevent OpenAI from tracking/training on the prompts sent in.
Honestly, that more creative side of genAI is not as interesting in the full context of Apple Intelligence. The real power is coming from the local, personal context, where Siri can deduce context based on your emails, messages, calendar events, maps, photos, etc. to really deeply integrate with apps. (Allegedly!) And that part is not OpenAI.
Local LLM's on regular local hardware (i.e. no $500+ dedicated GPUs) is way far behind SoTA models right now.
Apple is not gonna be in a position where you can practically real-time intelligently chat with Android phones while iPhones are churning out 3 tokens/second of near useless babbling.
I completely agree about the market positioning and not keeping up with other platforms’ abilities being a non-starter. I just hope it will be clear how to keep my external brain (phone) from being scanned by OpenAI.
(I don’t want it to seem like I’m just a hater of either Apple or OpenAI; I’m a more-recent adopter of Apple tech and I’m not looking back, and I have an OpenAI subscription and find it invaluable for some uses.)
Another thing I’m going to be looking for in the video is how this initiative jibes with the greenness Apple has been passing really hard. If they’re bringing this kind of generative AI from niches to every iphone, it seems that would add a fair amount of power consumption.
It's very clear, the keynote demonstrates that Siri passing a prompt to chatGPT is completely opt-in and only happens when Siri thinks the prompt needs the more generative/creative model that OpenAI provides.
So what sorts of queries will be on-device and what will be sent to OpenAI? How does this distinction appear in the UI?
Siri explicitly asks you if you want to use chatGPT to answer a query. It does so when it thinks chatGPT will have a better answer. It sounds like that will be for very creative/generative types of things like "please create a 4 course meal with xyz foods," at which point Siri asks you if you want to use chatGPT. It will be very clear, according to Apple.
Sure, the Apple cloud is ultra-secure and private and all, but I'd still like to know what happens where without having to test it myself by enabling airplane mode and seeing what still works.
All other AI features within the OS are powered by Apple's Private Compute Cloud, which is Apple's code running on Apple's chips at Apple's Data Center.
Clarification: All other AI features within the OS are powered by on device models which can reach out to the private cloud for larger workflows & models.
The plan is still the same. Eventually Apple will have Apple Intelligence all in-house and race everyone to $0.
…then announce a partnership with ChatGPT.
“…server-based models that run on dedicated Apple silicon servers.”
So much so that I sometimes dictate to ChatGPT then cut & paste into iMessage.
Plus, they talk about live phone call transcriptions, voice transcription in notes, the ability to correct words as you speak, contextual conversations in siri, etc. It 100% sounds like better voice recognition is coming
Introducing Apple Intelligence, the personal intelligence system
Apple is not going to lose control of the customer, ever, so on balance I would guess this is either not a forever partnership or that OpenAI won’t ultimately get what they want out of it. I’m very curious to see how much will be done on device and how much will go to gpt4o out of the gate.
I’m also curious if they’re using Apple intelligence for function calling and routing in device; I assume so. Extremely solid offerings from Apple today in general.
>Apple
>OpenAI
>Bill Gates by proxy
>US government
>???
Also, before anyone says "Oh they'd never do that!". Live in reality. They were already caught with PRISM.
Does anybody believe Apple will not be able to know who sent a given request, and that OpenAI won't be able to use the data in the request for more or less anything they want? I read statements like this and just flat-out don't believe them anymore.