It's been more than a few years since I worked at Apple, but they were always unique in the tech space in that their retail division dwarfed headcount. If I recall correctly all of OS X Lion was produced by around 3,000 engineers (and probably less, since I think that count included iLife and iWork).
I've been working on an ML model capable of robust continuous learning, resistant to catastrophic forgetting without relying on replay, an external memory system, or unbounded parameter growth. Last week I confirmed the first non-toy, 580M parameter version soundly beat LoRA, EWC, and full fine tuning. This week I'm scaling up to 4.4B parameters...
Based on what you've already mentioned, there's a good chance you're familiar, but on the off chance you're not: "Funkungfusion" (or, really, anything off the Ninja Tune label) might be right up your alley.
Eh, I'm not so sure it'll be that big a deal. The whole supply chain is so twisted and tangled all the way up and down. Shuffling out one piece doesn't seem like it will, on its own, be so major. Samsung made the chips for the iPhone, then made their own phone, then Apple designed their own chips made by TSMC, now Apple is exploring the possibility of having Samsung make those chips again.
Also, it takes a willful ignorance of history for ARM to claim this is the first time they've manufactured hardware. I mean, maaaaybe, teeeeechnically that's true, but ARM was the Acorn RISC Machine, and Acorn was in the hardware business...at least as much as Apple was for the first iPhone.
As I mentioned in another comment, I guess when ARM references to themselves, they mean Arm Holdings plc and not Acorn Computers. The two are of course very much related, but not the same company.
Fun fact about that cannon: it took so long for the cannon to cool off between shots that the Byzantines were able to patch each hole it caused before the next shot.
I exited academia for industry 15 years ago, and since then I haven't had nearly as much time to read review papers as I would like. For that reason, my view may be a bit outdated, but one thing I remember finding incredibly useful about review papers is that they provided a venue for speculation.
In the typical "experimental report" sort of paper, the focus is typically narrowed to a knifes edge around the hypothesis, the methods, the results, and analysis. Yes, there is the "Introduction" and a "Discussion", but increasingly I saw "Introductions" become a venue to do citation bartering (I'll cite your paper in the intro to my next paper if you cite that paper in the intro to your next paper) and "Discussion" turn into a place to float your next grant proposal before formal scoring.
Review papers, on the other hand, were more open to speculation. I remember reading a number that were framed as "here's what has been reported, here's what that likely means...and here's where I think the field could push forward in meaningful ways". Since the veracity of a review is generally judged on how well it covers and summarizes what's already been reported, and since no one is getting their next grant from a review, there's more space for the author to bring in their own thoughts and opinions.
I agree that LLMs have largely removed the need for review papers as a reference for the current state of a field...but I'll miss the forward-looking speculation.
Science is staring down the barrel of a looming crisis that looks like an echo chamber of epic proportions, and the only way out is to figure out how to motivate reporting negative results and sharing speculative outsider thinking.
My feelings about that outsider thing are pretty mixed.
On one hand I'm the person who implemented the endorsement system for arXiv. I also got a PhD in physics did a postdoc in physics then left the field. I can't say that I was mistreated, but I saw one of the stars of the field today crying every night when he was a postdoc because he was so dedicated to his work and the job market was so brutal -- so I can say it really hurts when I see something that I think belittles that.
On the other hand I am very much an interested outsider when it comes to biosignals, space ISRU, climate change, synthetic biology and all sorts of things. With my startup and hackathon experience it is routine for me to go look at a lot of literature in a new field and cook it down and realize things are a lot simpler than they look and build a demo that knocks the socks off the postdocs because... that's what I do.
But Riemann Hypothesis, Collatz, dropping names of anyone who wrote a popular book, I don't do that. What drives me nuts about crackpots is that they are all interested in the same things whereas real scientists are interested in something different. [1] It was a big part of our thinking about arXiv -- crackpot submissions were a tiny fraction of submission to arXiv but they would have been half the submissions to certain fields like quantum gravity.
I've sat around campfires where hippies were passing a spliff around and talking about that kind of stuff and was really amused recently when we found out that Epstein did the thing with professors who would have known better -- I mean, I will use my seduction toolbox to get people like that to say more than they should but not to have the same conversation I could have at a music festival.
> crackpot submissions were a tiny fraction of submission to arXiv but they would have been half the submissions to certain fields like quantum gravity
Just some very outsider thought:
Could it be that this problem is rather self-inflected by researchers and their marketing?
Physicists market all the time that resolving these questions about quantum gravity will give the answers to the deepest questions that plagued philosophers over millenia. Well, such a marketing attracts crackpots who do believe that they have something to tell about such topics.
Relatedly, to improve their chances of getting research funding, a lot of researchers do an outreach to the general public to show the importance of the questions that they work on. Of course this means that people from the general pyblic who now get interested in such questions will make their own attempt to make a contribution because - well, this researcher just told me how important it is to think about such questions. Of course such a person from the general public typically does not have the deep scientific knowledge such that their contribution meets the high scientific standards.
You've probably tried this already, but just in case: If you can find a copy of his PhD thesis it's likely (or at least would be likely without the information that you've had trouble tracking down his advisor) to have some mention of his advisor's name in it.
reply