upvote
> This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"

Digging into this:

> In conclusion, there is evidence that Ken Olsen did doubt the need for computers in the home, but the evidence is based primarily on the testimony of David Ahl who was perturbed when the personal computer project he championed at DEC was not supported by Olsen in 1974.

> Olsen’s resistance may have been similar to that expressed by another DEC executive, Gordon Bell. In 1980 Bell thought home terminals would act as gateways to remote computers which would provide appropriate services.

* https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/14/home-computer/

It was supposedly said in 1977: most computers at that time were not small, and so it would not be surprising that people would not expect the general public to desire a large, power-hungry, noise-y apparatus in their house.

reply
That's exactly the point. Until recently, AI models that could run on home machines were so bad that it was very hard to imagine anyone wanting to.

And, like the overly large machines of 1977, models are getting faster, leaner, and better. It's happening a lot quicker, though.

reply
This is why I'm bearish on Anthropic, OpenAI, and friends. I am not confident that we will continue to see the same pace of improvement in frontier model capabilities as we have seen over the past year or two - not using similar mathematics at least. But I think that getting results that are close enough to the same standard to be a realistic substitute but in a model small enough to run locally may well happen quite quickly. And if it does - where is the moat to defend these AI organisations with their astronomical budgets when they're already starting to price more realistically and that's already killing a lot of the hype they've enjoyed until very recently? They have an accidental moat because they bought up the global supply chain for storage but that surely isn't going to last once the data centres to hold that storage are becoming liabilities.
reply
We kinda ended up with terminals connected to mainframes anyway. The terminal being the web browser, and the mainframe being SaS. So it wasn't that far off.
reply
the network is the computer
reply
It doesn't really need this much explanation.

People take these quotes out of context all the time. Said in a business context, there was no need, at that time, for someone to have a personal computer.

There's no business justification in 1977 for a personal computer department at a business. It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?).

These statements aren't meant to be forever quotes. Their business plan quotes.

reply
> It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?)

640, and Bill Gates said he either never said that, or at least never remembered having said it. I think there is no evidence anywhere that he did.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote...

reply
That exact quote? No, never. He said something like: current computers at the time had 64kb of RAM, so the OS was designed with a limit of 640kb, and he believed this would give them 10 years of future proofing. As it happened, that limit was reached much faster, in about 6 years.
reply
Or maybe he simply made a mistake. Big deal. This doesn't speak negatively of his other achievements.
reply
He had a long career and presumably many successes, and is fallible like the rest of us. But a half-remembered zinger with no context makes for zippier posts I guess.

The early popularity of Minitel, the continued popularity of ssh/tmux, and the web browser itself indicates that bespoke client applications are not the only way. He wasn’t directionally wrong.

reply
The simple explanation is that predicting the future is generally impossible. It doesn't matter if it's Olsen or anybody else.
reply
or "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
reply
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/08/640k-enough/

Nobody ever said that, at least not as an assertion or prediction. The actual instances of similar language are from multiple people describing their earlier thoughts before they learned it wasn’t true.

reply
There’s no public proof this has ever been said, and if it was, if it was not taken out of context.
reply
I have that many browser tabs.
reply
That’s too strong of an assertion.

Local models aren’t deterministically equivalent in capabilities to foundation models. Home computers are turing complete; just like a mainframe. They are just slower. Often not slower enough to matter.

reply
Most people are ok with slower. An AI that lets you edit a family picture, in say 30 seconds, locally is preferable to one that is instantaneous but requires you to submit that picture to examination/storage/training/sale in someone else's AI ecosystem. If i want to crop my ex out of family photos, i should not have to first give that photo to Microsoft. If want an LLM to write a book report for me, i dont want it also alerting my school. And if i write a memo for a client, and i want an LLM to check the spelling, i dont want that memo leaked either.
reply
It’s completely technically possible to have cloud services where customer data is opaque to the provider. Some of Apple’s services are like this already, for example.

I think there’s a sweet spot currently with munging your data blindly on the server so that your client device battery still lasts all day.

Meanwhile Apple and others push on with making client side models more efficient so that eventually the server costs and complexities go away.

reply
I'd like to think so but the existence of Google and Apple and Microsoft's cloud based photo tools with phone integration suggests that's false.

You could run a pretty good home server on $50 of gear and yet we never saw any real adoption of OwnCloud/NextCloud style products as an alternative to Google Drive/Photos or Apple Cloud.

Why should LLM/Transformers be any different? Especially when you need a proper expensive GPU to run them instead of a Raspberry Pi?

reply
Apple's photo tools run on device, and they'll probably ship more on device foundation models at WWDC too.

On-device AI is going to be important, I think. It doesn't have to take the form of a chatbot UI to be useful.

reply
After the latest round of cloud storage price increases my non technical wife has been asking if we can do local backups instead...
reply
> Most people are ok with slower. An AI that lets you edit a family picture, in say 30 seconds, locally is preferable to one that is instantaneous but requires you to submit that picture to examination/storage/training/sale in someone else's AI ecosystem.

Maybe if you ask them that question, but if you show them two products, they'll definitely prefer the faster one. 30 seconds is a long time to watch a progress bar.

reply
Fast and public, or slow and private. Not everyone wants, or is allowed to, share their data with the AI world. And do not doubt that every bit shared with an AI service will be used for training.
reply
Plus there's the other question. If this thing is slower ... what's the price? The desktop/mini-pc version of this is $3000, after all. At this performance level what is an acceptable price for the laptops?

People definitely aren't going to accept more expensive + slower ...

reply
You seriously think running LLM is the same thing as general computing?
reply
It’s better, it’s useful even for those who don’t have a deep knowledge of computers. I’d expect more AI users than programmers, than ms-word users, than excel users.
reply