> * The endgame is intelligence as a commodity.

My comment won’t add anything to the discussion. As far as I know I have heard same idea * several times from George Hotz blog posts. I guess that’s what tiny corp wants to do.

So the argument of this _very_ Claude written piece is that.. On apple devices you have GPUs with fast-enough unified memory and can link them together?

Okay, fair, but why would I get an Apple device when I can get a Linux device with some monster motherboard that has a dozen memory slots?

Any interaction with the iOS 27 beta siri compared with ChatGPT Live quickly disproves this drivel. Also OP seems unaware of their bandwidth contstraints

While I generally agree that local models will gain popularity and Apple is generally well situated to capitalize on this, articles like this are not the way to convince anyone.

Plots with no axis labels or units displayed? In fact if you're literally just comparing two things, why not just write down the two numbers? Or better yet strengthen your argument by comparing more than just literally two options?

And the pictures. You seriously couldn't be bothered to just go find a picture of four Mac minis stacked on top of each other, and had to genai a picture of four vaguely-mac-mini-shaped blocks?

It is hard to be the king when it only dominates the market share in a few rich countries.

I like Apple and think there is an AI bubble, but this article is kind of dumb.

Apple is not doing anything magical with hardware that other companies, including Nvidia, cannot do for roughly the same price/performance. The M series is amazing, but there are comparable products out there now. If you want to say eventually demand for Nvidia will fade because demand for training frontier models will decrease with time, fair, but that doesn’t suddenly make Apple the king of AI.

Also, for new better AI models to happen someone will need to train those new better models and that isn’t going to happen on 5000 Mac minis duct taped together.