Ok, so you weren’t countering that ML wasn’t AI, just contending that ML wasn’t “the” AI in the AI field, that’s fine. Keep in mind this thread kicked off from an assertion that ML wasn’t AI. Fine, ML wasn’t all of AI, but definitely was AI and in the popular understanding, it was pretty much “the” AI in the same way LLM is “the” AI now.
As I said. It’s an extrapolation of the rules from once upon a time to a totally different approach. It’s marketing and increasingly subjective. Any number can “make sense” in that context. The number isn’t based on anything you could actually measure for a long time now, it’s already a fiction, so it can go wherever.
To be fair, the industry spent decades measuring a distance, so when they started doing features that had equivalent effects, the easiest way for people to understand was to say something akin to equivalent size.
Of course, then we have things like Intel releasing their "10 nm* process, then after TSMC’s 7nm process was doing well and Intel fab hit some bumps, they declared their 10 to be more like a 7 after all… it’s firmly all marketing number…
Problem being no one is suggesting a more objective measure.
For a while now the “nm” has been a bit of a marketing description aiming for what the size would be if you extrapolated the way things used to be to today. The industry spent so long measuring that when the measurement broke down they just kind of had to fudge it to keep the basis of comparison going, for lack of a better idea . If we had some fully volumetric approach building these things equally up in three dimensions, we’d probably have less than “100 pm” process easily, despite it being absurd.
I would say more the opposite, in pop culture, LLM == AI. In the technical world, both in university and industry, AI has covered a lot of areas, and machine vision based on ML was absolutely under the category of AI. If you said you used pytorch to train an AI model no one in the industry or academia would have batted an eye.
Yes. And I took an “AI” class as part of computer science curriculum back around 2000, including implementing “AI” stuff in lisp. We’ve been talking about AI for decades and ML for machine vision was always under that umbrella from the time out started becoming viable.
LLM is the recent popular subset of AI, not all of AI.
Yeah, this is right up machine vision alley, and is a pretty straightforward and good thing in general. It lets computers look through haystacks that humans just would take forever to get through. A thoroughly attentative human may do as well, if not better, given enough time, but it takes a lot of time and a human will burn out before reviewing that much imaging.
I mean, prior to the whole LLM craze ML was pretty much ‘the’ AI thing.
Note that AI got so messy they started saying the thing people imagined is ‘AGI’, so I don’t know if you are thinking that, but in that picky scenario there is no such thing as ‘AI’ on the market with that definition.
ML is also AI. Obviously would be one of those instead of the LLM stuff, and generally the LLM stuff is the more controversial.
Note this isn’t an LLM.
Feels like a rerun…
My general point is that discussing the intricacies of potential local AI model usage is way over the head of the people that would even in theory care about the facile “AI PC” marketing message. Since no one is making it trivial for the casual user to actually do anything with those NPUs, then it’s all a moot point for this sort of marketing. Even if there were an enthusiast market that would use those embedded NPUs without a distinct more capable infrastructure, they wouldn’t be swayed/satisfied with just ‘AI PC’ or ‘Copilot+’, they’d want to know specs rather than a boolean yes/no for ‘AI’.
The issue is that to the extent that might even make sense, no major player is actually doing anything to help that happen. Every big player is exclusively focused on taking AI use cases into their datacenters, because that’s the way to maintain control and demand subscriptions.
If you did do it, then the users would complain that the ‘AI feature’ as executed on their puny NPU is really slow compared to what the online alternative does.
So that scenario is a hypothetical, and they are trying to make sales based on now. ‘AI PC’ doesn’t make any sense because people imagine what you describe, but in reality just cannot tell a difference because nothing works any differently for their ‘AI experience’. Their experience is going to be a few niche Windows features work that most people don’t even know about or would want.
Well, first Dell’s use of ‘confused’ is mainly a way to walk “away” from AI as a marketing strategy without having to walk it “back” (they can’t walk it back: Microsoft will keep Copiloting it up, the processor comparies will keep bundling NPUs, and the consumer exposure to AI will continue to have nothing to do with any of the ‘AI PC’ or not). So ‘confused’ is a way to rationalize the absence of ‘AI PC’ in their marketing strategy without having to actually change what they are doing.
But to the extent ‘confusing’ may apply, it’s less about ‘AI’ and more about ‘AI PC’. What about this ‘AI PC’ would impact your usage with AI, for most people the answer is ‘not at all’, since mostly it’s over the internet. So for the layperson, an ‘AI PC’ just enables a few niche Windows features no one cares about. Everything pushing around the ‘AI’ craze is well away from actually running on the end user devices.
More to the point, the casual consumer isn’t going to dig into the nitty gritty of running models locally and not a single major player is eager to help them do it (they all want to lock the users into their datacenters and subscription opportunities).
On the Dell keeping NPUs in their laptops, they don’t really have much of a choice if they want modern processors, Intel and AMD are all-in on it still.
It’s just a softer thing to say than ‘a lot of people hate AI and it’s alienating potential customers’. They can’t come out and say that out loud, they don’t want to piss off Microsoft too much and they aren’t going to try to do NPU-free systems (it’s not really possible). They aren’t going to do anything to ‘fight back’ against the AI that people hate (they can’t), so their best explanation as to why they pull back from a toxic brand strategy is that ‘people just don’t care’ rather than ‘people hate this thing that we are going to keep feeding’.
But if they need to rationalize the perspective, an “AI” PC does nothing to change the common users experience with the AI things they know, does not change ChatGPT or Opus or anything similar, that stuff is entirely online. So for the common user, all ‘AI’ PC means is a few Windows gimmicks that people either don’t care about or actively complained about (Recall providing yet another way for sensitive data to get compromised).
In terms of “AI” as a brand value, the ones most bullish about AI are executives that like the idea of firing a punch of people and incidently they actually want to buy fewer PCs as a result. So even as you can find AI enthusiastic people, they still don’t want AI PCs.
For most people, their AI experience has been:
For those that have actually positive AI experience, they already know it has nothing to do with whether the PC is ‘AI’ or not. So it’s just a brand liability, not a value.
Ok, now that makes sense, and I can see the strategy.
Some unsubstantiated tip submitted during the 2020 election? Leave Trump’s name in and emphasize how tenuous Trump’s presence is in the Epstein files.
Your linked document appears to be a part of more substantial testimony, so redact Trump since it’s not really suitable for debunking.
I missed that, currently it’s published without that redaction… https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 8/EFTA00025010.pdf
When did they redact it?
Actually, that tip didn’t even pretend to redact Trump’s name. This was not one of the documents where someone had to highlight/copy/paste to ‘defeat’ the redaction.
There may be other places where they did redact his name, I don’t know. I haven’t bothered and the specific examples that people bothered to highlight weren’t Trump.
A month from now:
I’m working on this horrible Venezuela situation that BIDEN left me with. Such a waste of American resources but I’m going to pull that back to make America great again.