Neither Apple's nor Google's announcement says Siri will use Gemini models. Both announcements say, word for word, "Google’s technology provides the most capable foundation for Apple Foundation Models". I don't know what that means, but Apple and Google's marketing teams must have crafted that awkward wording carefully to satisfy some contractual nuance.
Direct quote from their joint statement: "Apple and Google have entered into a multi-year collaboration under which the next generation of Apple Foundation Models will be based on Google's Gemini models and cloud technology. These models will help power future Apple Intelligence features, including a more personalized Siri coming this year."
> "Google’s technology provides the most capable foundation for Apple Foundation Models"
Beyond Siri, Apple Foundation Models are available as API; will Google's technologies thus also be available as API? Will Apple reduce its own investment in building out the Foundation models?
I see what you mean, though I think “these models” refers to Apple’s Foundation Models, which “will be based on Google's Gemini models and cloud technology.” I guess it depends on wrist “based” means.
If a new programming language doesn’t need to be written by humans (though should ideally still be readable for auditing), I hope people research languages that support formal methods and model checking tools. Formal methods have a reputation for being too hard or not scaling, but now we have LLMs that can write that code.
Absolutely agreed. My theory is that the more tools you give the agent to lock down the possible output, the better it will be at producing correct output. My analogy is something like starting a simulated annealing run with bounds and heuristics to eliminate categorical false positives, or perhaps like starting the sieve of eratosthenes using a prime wheel to lessen the busywork.
I also think opinionated tooling is important - for example, the toy language I'm working on, there are no warnings, and there are no ignore pragmas, so the LLM has to confront error messages before it can continue.
You can choose which token to sample based on language semantics. You simply don't sample invalid ones. So the language should be restrictive on what tokens it allows enough that invalid code is impossible.
Typescript. I imagine most people writing Rails applications are also writing typescript for front-end code, so being able to use the same muscle memory for Ruby typing seems high desirable. That is the thing that stood out to me when I saw this site: it looks like they are taking the very positive lessons from Typescript and applying them to Ruby.
I agree with other posters here. I don't need everything typed - Ruby's duck typing is an awesome feature - but I do wish that some of the more important interfaces in our code were more strongly self-documenting and enforced.
I used Notational Velocity for years. I loved its free form approach to note taking and searching, but I needed a cross platform solution with files that could be shared using Dropbox.
I now just use three text files open in Sublime Text: todo-today.txt, todo-this-week.txt, and todo-later.txt. I review them daily and promote todos to the next file when appropriate.
I was visualizing Scala method definitions and associated the language's type inference with keyword use, thus bringing C++'s "auto" keyword to mind when the long-since deprecated "register" keyword was the correct subject.
It would appear LLM's are not the only entities which can "hallucinate" a response. :-D
But yes, capitalized "Internet" refers to the "Connected Internet," of which there is only one. The first rule of SIPRnet is no one talks about SIPRnet. But if we did talk about it, the comment would likely be that it is like "the Internet" but not "the Internet."
If you spend time in academia or academia-adjacent industrial research, you sometimes hear "an internet" (always with lower case to signal it's a common noun) to describe a network of networks. But you are right... that use is not growing and if anything shrinking.
Maybe some aliens out there have their own internet. But then is the internet just the sum of all intranets and thus in a way just the top-level intranet?
reply