[lolinder]

MM1 is a research paper, not a release of a competing product. I'm sure the paper is interesting and am looking forward to reading an analysis of it by someone who understands these things better than I do, but this is not that analysis, it's an extremely low-effort puff piece that is more interested in getting attention than in accurately describing a research paper.

I don't usually say this, but TFA frankly feels like it was written by AI:

> The release of MM1 by Apple contributes significantly to the artificial intelligence domain, offering a detailed roadmap for the development of future MLLMs. By sharing the insights and design principles gleaned from MM1, Apple not only challenges the current capabilities of models like ChatGPT but also invites the broader AI community to build upon their findings, potentially leading to more sophisticated and capable AI systems.

[basicallybones]

I believe most run-of-the-mill marketing language will sound like it is written in AI. The easiest thing to do for technology writing is to write the complete, factual article, then ask an LLM to dumb it down to whatever level you need for communication.

[JimDabell]

No, I agree this really does seem autogenerated, or at the very least written by somebody who doesn’t understand the topic at all and is going through the motions of padding things out to hit a hype / word count. It’s got that weird summary focusing on the wrong things and wild speculations dressed up as serious predictions vibe, like there are words saying things in places because there are supposed to be words there and not because it’s actually imparting useful information.

[CharlesW]

Out of curiosity, where are you seeing this? It's not in the abstract or the paper.

[JimDabell]

Some of these comments were originally made in response to this spammy submission:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726156

[lolinder]

Oh, thank you! I didn't know we'd been moved.

[CharlesW]

Ah! Makes sense now, thank you.