Apple are really the major OS company _without_ widespread use of a first party obfuscator; Microsoft have WarBird and Google have PairIP.

I was mostly joking, I am not from the US and not skilled enough to be considered for bothering with creating a visa for me when there are thousands of developers much more fit for this in the USA. But it is neat to see that the requirements are not as intense as I would've expected

Shoddy research / hallucination, tendency to lose the thread, lack of historical / background context… the failure modes are at least qualitatively similar.

Show me an LLM failure and I’ll show you a high profile journalist busted for the same thing. And those are humans who focus on these things!

(This was a while ago. I see the M4 is at 28 B)

Which is why I'm all the more surprised that Apple would claim 2x more ANE TOPS than it can really does.

no it's not insane - it's completely mundane policy. that's my point - that you're calling something out as insane with exactly zero experience (which is the actually insane thing...).

in big hardware companies, things start getting siloed, but that probably has more to do with big companies (seemingly invariably) operating as a union of fiefdoms (dunbar-number-ification?)

People seem to be going around pointing out that people talk like parrots, when in reality it's parrots talk like people.

It's not my subject, but it reads as a list of things. There's little exposition.

Here is why you are correct:

- I see what you did there.

- You are always right.

"Here’s the fascinating part:", "And one delightful discovery: "

Personally I find the AI-isms take away from the voice of the author. What does the author find interesting? What was their motivation? It's all lost in a sea of hubris and platitudes.

There's almost certainly a positive side - technical people who aren't so good at communication can now write punchy deep-tech blogs. But what's lost is the unique human voice that is normally in every piece of writing. It's like every blog is rewritten by a committee of copywriters before it's published. Bleurgh.

- "- Name - {Noun with modifiers} {comma} {verb-ing with modifiers}."

- "- Name - {Noun with modifiers} {comma} {verb-ing with modifiers}."

The phrasing is the same, which I notice sometimes happens in my own notes, but it's most noticeable when an LLM is asked to summarize items. An LLM written job description (without major prompting) for a resume comes out the same way, in my experience. It's the simplest full-sentence grammar for describing what something is, and then what something does.

If we used the developer's descriptions (from the github repo) to populate the info, it would look like this:

- hollance/neural-engine - Everything we actually know about the Apple Neural Engine (ANE)

- mdaiter/ane - Reverse engineered the Apple Neural Engine, with working Python and Objective C samples

- apple/ml-ane-transformers - eiln/ane - Reverse engineered Linux driver for the Apple Neural Engine (ANE).

- apple/ml-ane-transformers - Reference implementation of the Transformer architecture optimized for Apple Neural Engine (ANE)

IMO It may not be as information-packed as the LLM list, but it is more interesting to read. I can tell, or at least think I can tell, that different individuals wrote each description, and it's what they wanted me to know most about their project.

If I were making a list of software during research (that would eventually turn into a report), the particular details I write down in the moment would be different, depending on the solution I'm looking for or features it has or doesn't have, will add or won't add. I don't try to summarize "the Whole Project" in one clean bullet point, i (or my readers) can re-read the repo for that, or glean it from surrounding context (presuming enough surrounding context was written). But unless I made an effort later to normalize the list, the grammar, length, and subpoints would vary from the form-identifiable "LLM Concise Summary." It's more work for me to write to a standard, and even more work to consciously pick one.

EDIT: Upon re-reading the article, I noticed the "Prior Art" section is written in past-tense, as I would expect. But the list is in present tense. I feel like it jumps from "narrative" to "technical details list" back to "narrative". And the list is 70% of the section! I wouldn't mind reading a whole paragraph describing each project, what worked, what didn't, what they could use and what they couldn't, in the past tense, if it were interestingly-written. Something that tells me the author dove into the previous projects, experimented with them, or if they interacted with the developers. Or something interesting the author noticed while surveying the "prior art". but "interestingly-written" isn't really the LLMs goal, nor its ability. It's maximal information transfers with minimal word count. So the result is a list that smells like the author merely read the repo readme and wrote a summary for the masses in a technical report.

tl;dr The list is just "a list", and that makes it not interesting to read. If it was not interesting to read it was probably not interesting to write, which I take as an LLM writing it.

There's far more microarchitectural complexity in GPUs that actually isn't efficient for NN structures.

"Systolic array" actually means something more specific than "repeated structures on a die."

Again, I'd suggest referencing the various HotChips presentations. It's a really interesting topic area. Or the original TPU v1 paper for the basics.