It is not a “should”. At least not in the “we wish it were so” sense.
It is more that there are multiple reasons why this idea (burning an LLM into silicone and deploying it into a device in people’s pockets) requires huge piles of cash and the kind of engineering chops only a few company posesses.
Of course i would like it if a small upstart would do this, but it doesn’t seem likely as a posibility. They won’t have the funds to fab the IC. They won’t have the funds to train and validate the model before burning it into silicone. They can’t absorb the risk of the first tape out going wrong. They can’t absorb the risk of the model being faulty in some subtle way. They don’t have a device to integrate the IC into. They won’t have the funds to develop one. If they somehow would make a device they don’t have the marketing and sales channels built out to get the device into people’s hands in sufficient numbers to justify the development cost.
Basically this idea feels ruinously expensive. Apple has deep pockets, they already have working well-regarded phones, and an ethos of privacy preserving innovation. This is why this idea feels well suited for them and not many others.
Do i want the winners to keep winning? No. But not many others can pay for a moonshot crossed with a manhattan project. They just can’t.
Yes, it's an interesting register (sorry for the claudism; blame lesswrong-weighted training) for the use of the word 'should'. I agree with your assessment and it is rarely articulated. Sometimes I think that the HN set is abused by big tech both from above on the employer side and the consumer usage side (all the T&C's, VC incentives and M&A taking away once-good-things). So they adopt the only sliver of agency-salving language available, like 'big company that I have no scope over should X'.
Good point. IMHO we're thinking of too much in single entities doing everything.
Right now it's kinda the world we live in, with Apple or Google doing the total vertical integration from chip design to retail shops, but it doesn't have to be that way.
It could be done the traditional way with for instance a joint venture receiving funds and expertise from several players in each of the field and collaborating with external companies to get to the final package.
It is more that there are multiple reasons why this idea (burning an LLM into silicone and deploying it into a device in people’s pockets) requires huge piles of cash and the kind of engineering chops only a few company posesses.
Of course i would like it if a small upstart would do this, but it doesn’t seem likely as a posibility. They won’t have the funds to fab the IC. They won’t have the funds to train and validate the model before burning it into silicone. They can’t absorb the risk of the first tape out going wrong. They can’t absorb the risk of the model being faulty in some subtle way. They don’t have a device to integrate the IC into. They won’t have the funds to develop one. If they somehow would make a device they don’t have the marketing and sales channels built out to get the device into people’s hands in sufficient numbers to justify the development cost.
Basically this idea feels ruinously expensive. Apple has deep pockets, they already have working well-regarded phones, and an ethos of privacy preserving innovation. This is why this idea feels well suited for them and not many others.
Do i want the winners to keep winning? No. But not many others can pay for a moonshot crossed with a manhattan project. They just can’t.