upvote
The Taalas chips are not physically small. And part of their secret (if you look at the design) is just locating a bunch of memory soldered on the edges ( I belive higher amounts of SRAM ? )
reply
Baking the base models on to ROM makes a lot of economic sense. SRAM for the KV cache & fine-tunes, not so much. Sure you’d get incredible speeds but it’s not scalable from a die-size or cost perspective.

Rather base model on ROM + KV cache on DRAM is much more scalable. Also this would work great for edge devices that have a 2-5 year lifecycle.

reply
Baking the base models on to ROM makes a lot of economic sense.

Less so for consumers though, because it'd mean the phone is out of date in 3 months when a better model comes along.

reply
And the customers can wait for the new phone released next year. These are edge models - the average customer doesn’t need the latest frontier model. Just needs to be good enough for the features you promised.
reply
It's a perfect reason to get consumers to buy a new phone every year again! They got bored of the camera.
reply
It is my understanding that just baking the model itself into silicon only gives moderate gains because memory bandwidth remains a bottleneck.
reply
The big benefit is ROM cells require fewer components than DRAM. So the chips would be tiny, dense, cheap and consume far less power.
reply
I thought DRAM was pretty dense already. Is mask ROM that much denser?
reply
Yes, each rom bit can be a transistor or even a diode with a decoder circuit. Simplest Dram cell is capacitor+transistor - and you need a clock, refresh circuit etc.

Someday, I imagine model weights could even be encoded as analog resistors (memristors or similar) for even greater density

reply
Hm. I wonder how many relays I'd need to make a physical MNIST classifier. That'd be dope
reply
Their PoC chips are big, but then it's ridiculously fast (have you seen chatjimmy.ai?). Also they must be holding a bunch of patents.
reply
I don't think this works out from a cost/silicon perspective. Small models already run pretty well in software (since the weights fit in cache) and big models require silicon area proportional to the size of weights. On a mobile device putting a chip like this is competing directly in BOM and power against a whole lot more l3 cache, and the l3 cache makes everything faster
reply
What, even if it means you can run models without relying on the currently backlogged DRAM production?
reply
The size of model we're talking about running doesn't need much if any dram.
reply
My question is what changes about LLM use cases when you’re getting 1000 tok/s? Models in silicon might dramatically change how we think about them.
reply
Did you use chatjimmy? It's somewhat terrifying to use when you think of the potential results with a better model.

Ok, real life example: I now spend most of my time, as a developer, waiting for the agent to do its thing (after careful prompting, I'm also thinking about work stuff, don't worry I'm not useless). What if it gave back the same excellent results, but instantaneously? Why, then, I certainly would become the bottleneck. So, quite possibly, my last work task would be to plug this agent directly into the ticket system where the domain experts input their feature requests. Maybe we still need 1 developer out of 100, to coordinate releases and all that (ok, say 1 out of 10).

But that's not taking things far enough: why do we need these domain experts at all? Our pitch is clear, and all software-enabled, though it took years to develop. We can just have the clients express their concerns to the AI, directly or indirectly. Have multiple lighting-fast agents with different roles (refactoring agent, new features agent, debugger agent, domain expert agent, etc.). So we fire everyone, maybe keep 1 product owner / devops to keep the trolls out. The cost is still probably 100 times less than it used to be (beyond the initial cost of acquisition of the magic machine or whatever).

But one of these clients, surely, will realize that these 10 years of manual and slowly-automated development can now be emulated in very, very little time. Why not just, say, take screenshots of the entire app and feed them into the magic machine? Why, this way, they could have the service for a tenth of the yearly cost, forever!

And then the economy implodes.

I'm not saying it's THE most likely version of things, I'm saying that at a certain level, quantity (or rather, speed) is a quality all its own. And this new quality might change the world. Let's hope it's for the better!

reply
Errors compound, and making 1000 wrong decisions per hour, will not result in something useful. Maybe you‘ve tried setting up guardrails for good design or architecture at some point? I think it’s simply not possible to do that.

It would certainly be an accelerator for people who know exactly what they want. And it would remove multi tasking, which I‘d appreciate.

reply
This is the same pitch that people make about AI today. Speed isn’t the differentiator, quality is
reply
I'm not sure inference speed is always the slowest thing for me right now. The agent is running tests, loading webpages, etc, which all take time. I don't know if a fast agent would speed things up in all cases.

That said, it obviously depends on the project.

reply
> "The agent is running tests, loading webpages, etc, which all take time"

A frustrating vision of the future would be when we've been asking for faster loading lighter web pages for years and then companies start caring about it and improving it not for us humans but for LLMs.

reply
It's already kind of that way with MCP servers popping up everywhere. The JIRA MCP server is like a couple orders of magnitude faster to work with than the website itself.
reply
That’s their API with extra steps, or am I missing something? That was always faster.
reply
They finally cared about clear requirements and documentation when that meant getting rid of devs.
reply
That happened at corpo work for each of: * Build times * CI latency * Developer tooling * Documentation * Modularity
reply
> I now spend most of my time, as a developer, waiting for the agent to do its thing (after careful prompting, I'm also thinking about work stuff, don't worry I'm not useless).

you need to launch 10-15 more terminals, who is waiting these days? :)

reply
I think this reads like Ray Kurzwheil (sorry not able to spell that off top of my head, that bloke who wrote that book about the future) .. But yeah very dystopian and totally realistic. Not if but when..
reply
I LOVE Kurzwheil! Thank you for the compliment, I'm very far from having his writing skills. But yes sci-fi is looking more and more like, well, sci.
reply
In the case on on-device/self-hosted LLMs. You ask your agent to implement xyz feature 10 times and use a model to compare the outputs and combine the best results.

Raw intelligence becomes slightly less important when you can iterate and improve automatically. You can still claim it was "one shot" even when 30 different implementations were made then combined.

reply
Problem is, there exists no judge model that will really pick the same winner that you would.
reply
The best way I can explain it is that it's the same feeling when I upgraded from 56k dialup to cable broadband.
reply
Massive economic simulations with thousands if not millions of agents to front run the global economy and stock market.

Fully interactive realtime NPCs in videogames at scale.

Recommender systems that simulate individual consumers.

Crazy shit

reply
About your first example, isn’t the butterfly effect preventing this from being useful? One agent in your simulation decides to sell, and starts an avalanche, that won’t happen in reality?
reply
That likely isn't as relevant for on-device iPhone usage as it is for Real Work™. I won't notice the difference between 50tps and 1000tps when asking Siri a question.
reply
I don't know. As others have said, the Taalas chip wasn't small, or particularly low power, so it's hard to "imagine" what that tech in an cell phone chip might look like.

But if the basic premise of "good enough LLM at insane throughput" holds, I think it could qualitatively change local uses of LLMs. At a certain speed point, you're able to move from request -> response to a cascade of tool calling and "subagents", which could allow a small model to be much more useful, if provided with a lot of local data and tool calls.

That said, this is assuming you could stuff a "good enough" model into a phone with Taalas-like technology. The Taalas tech demo was an 8B parameter model and required hundreds of watts (IIRC) to run. The efficiency was good given the speed (as I understand), but it's not clear at all that the approach scales small enough to be a sensible coprocessor on an iPhone or whatever.

reply
Box that plugs into my desktop would be fine. Or perhaps in SSF form factor.
reply
But wouldn't higher tps allow for more reasoning or other hidden processes, potententially making a smarter model?
reply
This is my thought as well. Models have to be intentional about which tokens they burn because there's a real lag time. If you can just fork out 10 different reasoning sessions at once with no regard for token waste/lag, you can compensate a smaller model with just doing more at once with it. No idea if this is reasonably true though.
reply
That order of magnitude could be the difference between "the users wants me to open the notes app, let's open it" and "I've scanned all your notes before you could blink and found what you're looking for".
reply
If Siri is using a 3T model in high reasoning mode to answer your question you will.
reply
Works great from a press release perspective though.
reply
The weights might fit in cache, if you're using a small model. If you wanted to have a 20B+ parameter model, that's just going in RAM. You could put more RAM in the device and pay the perf cost or have a dedicated chip. Most devices already have a dedicated chip, this just changes which silicon you're spending the money on.
reply
That math doesn't really work.

8B model (FP4) = 4 GB DRAM = 32 Gb DRAM = 80 mm2

8B model (Taalas) = 4 GB ROM = ~800 mm2

reply
That's actually a really good point... There's currently zero incentive to buying more hardware, and that's one very good reason do have a new one.
reply
But this is already happening with iPhones. Apple is touting on-device AI and only the latest phones offer the full capabilities. Newer phones will be able to run better models, so the incentive is there as soon as someone makes the killer app that only makes sense when the model is running locally on your phone.
reply
From what I remember, these chips are not mobile size yet
reply
A small model would be. I think that’s more the point. It’s definitely not SOTA but it’s fast and energy efficient and local.
reply
> A small model would be [mobile size]

A ~30mm side for the HC1 tech for an 8b model (still unclear the planned HC2)?

reply
Is that analogue or are they baking floating points into the silicon?
reply
It's entirely possible they're using something like block floating point, where most of the hardware is simply fixed point. AMD's NPU does this, for example.
reply
Nope, a small model would be larger than the whole iPhone SoC.
reply
Slightly besides your point, but it's interesting how many here naturally ponder about how the current winner could or "should" keep winning, instead of how another company could become a competitor by doing the more clever thing the incumbent isn't thinking about.
reply
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.

reply
Apple is somewhere between fashion company and second rate tech company.

They could have 9 year old AI and still post profits.

Not sure if it's my pixel or android, but I made a randos jaw drop with what the crappy AI on android can do.

When are we getting android OpenClaw?

reply
deleted
reply