According to CPU bench, the Neo CPU is about the same speed as a mid range intel laptop CPU from 4 years ago.
Apple A18 Pro (Q1 2026): Multithread 11977, Single Thread 4043
Intel Core i5-1235U (Q1 2022): Multithread 12605, Single Thread 3084
--
On the high-end we got i9-13900KS at about 60k, M5 Max 18 scores about the same. But when you move on to server CPUs like Threadripper and EPYC things are about 3x faster.
Lets see if the brand new Arm AGI changes this situation in a few months.
For now, in server applications the ARM CPUs can win when the workloads are not computationally intensive, i.e. they consist mostly in data transfers and searches, for example in Web servers, database servers, storage servers, networking appliances, etc.
There still are applications where ISA matters, like technical/scientific computing, where the performance can be dominated by array operations or operations with big numbers. For such workloads the x86 CPUs with AVX-512 can provide a performance per watt and per dollar that cannot be reached by the current ARM-based CPUs.
Please make a standalone case with a usb port for the keyboard trackpad! I would love to have it for when I connect the laptop to an external monitor. I hate the mouse, but I love the trackpad right under the keyboard.
Whatever. We have public utility OS, all the hardware vendors should be forced to provide open-source working drivers after they stop supporting their hardware.
If they are afraid of IP leak, well, they can continue support.
My desktop I built in 2012 is still working running ubuntu, even after Intel & MS decided that it is EOL with the release of windows 11.
All of the capital intensive businesses face this issue. Chemicals, Shipping, Semiconductors etc.
You get market signals that the demand is there, you acquire the necessary capital, you spend 5 years to build capacity, but guess what, 5 other market players did the same thing. So now you are doomed, because the market is flooded and you have low cash flow since you need to drop prices to compete for pennies.
Now you cannot find capital, you don't invest, but guess what, neither your competitors did. So now the demand is higher than the supply. Your price per unit sold skyrocketed, but you don't have enough capacity!
Forecasting demand 5 years into the future is intrinsically highly unreliable. It doesn’t matter if it is capitalism or a command economy. The bet is always going to be risky and someone will have to pay for that risk.
At least with capitalism you have many different people with different perspectives on the risk making independent bets. That mitigates the more extreme negative outcomes.
To add to that, investors who do make the bet get punished for over-building, which is better than tax payers paying for it. And before someone says it, big corps do get bailed out by gov't, but that's definitely goes against capitalist ideas.
Also it is government job to regulate. Monopolies should be busted, and behaviour like that should be culled. But US govt is full on AI to mask them cratering their own economy.
Is the DRAM industry really capitalist? Focusing on just the Korean parties, it functions like a command economy. I would say the same about most high end semi-conductor manufacturing, TSMC, Intel, ASML are being commanded and driven by nation-state level decision making. Right now the command is to focus on high wattage centralized AI systems at the expense of everything else.
No one at high levels is capitalist, in ideology or action. An ideological capitalist would be in favor of competition, but these people disdain it and collude regularly. The only 'capitalist' actions they take are by accident, the real goal is as much power/money as possible as fast as possible.
We don't even expect companies to plan long-term anymore, it's just moving wealth as fast as possible.
That isn't really a change, very few people could ever have been said to be ideological capitalists. (capitalist is not a word with a hard definition, but I'm considering it a different thing than the more modern pure libertarian zero-regulation ideology)
I think the common use of the term capitalist is as a participant in capitalism.
This is distinct from someone who is a proponent of capitalism as a system, which appears to be the way you are using capitalist. For which I don't blame you.
Liberalism (in the traditional economic sens) likes competition. Capitalism is a mode of production, and capitalists notoriously don’t like competition when they are the incumbents
Because that does not happen exactly as you say for all players. The demand signals will be processed and long-term risk is balanced against short-term gain in a distributed fashion, so not everyone will do the same.
It's more optimal than planned economies until we have AI planned economies with realtime feedback, I guess.
Consumers get cheap goods during oversupply and most inefficient companies get elliminated during bust while consolidation leads to economies of scale.
Why is the opposite of capitalist markets automatically assumed to be a command economy? Co-op style businesses aren't really capitalist orientated but are also not reliant on government action.
That's not what capitalists claim. Capitalists claim communism is responsible for tens, if not hundreds, of millions of death due to famine. And overall miserable ways of life, as if humans were termites deprived of any individualism and any freedom.
Capitalists claim that France importing 500 000 people from the third world each year, out of which only 10% are ever going to work (and these are official numbers) and yet offering them all a safety net is unsustainable. And that that socialism is only going to lead to one thing: running out of taxpayers' money.
Capitalists don't claim they have the best system: what they claim is that they haven't seen a less worse one.
I don't know who these "capitalists" are, but generally speaking business regularizes as entrepreneurs learn to read new signals after unexpected market shifts.
It is unlike a socialist system in that there are signals to read in the first place. What, do socialists claim that failure is optimal when you can't even tell if you've failed?
The sheer fucking blazing ignorance of this comment
> Capitalists claim that this is optimal.
Compared to starving under communism coz someone at top got the number wrong, yes. And it only really happens when there are massive, unpredictable market movements and governments not doing their job. Govt should look at the whole thing and just say "no", blame them.
No market system self regulates well enough, and it's government job to file down the edge cases like this. But the revolution happened in country which has two utterly incompetent parties, both in pockets of billionaires, fighting for power, and the clowns from one that won last battle use AI to smokescreen the economic growth their actions cratered
It seems pretty obvious that GP wasn’t saying $10/hr to mean literally $10/hr, but were exaggerating to imply that people were getting chump change for this work. $30/hr is still chump change and not enough to buy oneself any reasonable quality of life for the majority of the population.
Well, it's something. PhD students have always been pretty poorly paid because there's a massive oversupply of them. At least they have an additional source of income available to them.
Math, physics, and chemistry RLHF freelancing is typically north of $40/hr. Even competence at simply reading & writing English prose earns at least $20/hr. I've never seen an offer for less than that, and I lived off of that kind of work for a month after a layoff in 2024.
That seems like a fair trade considering the freelancer takes on none of the risk and has very little required capital.
To be blunt, those freelancers wouldn't be doing this if they had better options
Every time one of these articles come up, you can recognize that silicon valley is treating these people badly, but you should remember that everyone else is treating them worse
That shouldn't be viewed in isolation. A major root cause is essentially overproduction of academics downstream from the Cold War, and obviously the private sector is not to blame for that.
But you can't ignore how much modern Big Tech has sucked away from academia compared to the tech companies of the Cold War era. Microsoft Research and Google Research have some impressive folks, but even combined they are a scientific pittance compared to the might of Bell Labs, and there is far more interference from the business side. This despite the fact that the executives of those companies are vastly wealthier than anyone from Bell Labs in the 20th century, even adjusting for inflation.
And of course it's not just the executives: every 7-figure Google software engineer should get a >$100k pay cut, and that money goes to a STEM PhD to pursue nonprofit research at Google Labs. Believe it or not, $100k is still pretty competitive for a young PhD mathematician (similar to assistant professor at a selective state school). Even if it's chump change for a guy who fine tunes AdSense.
Describing it as "overproduction of academics" is kind of begging the question, though: is it not at least as much "deprioritization of basic research and education"?
It's not like the current demand for scientists is somehow a completely natural value, arrived at objectively and with no human biases involved.
And the private sector is heavily to blame for that. In ways that you even describe, as well as others (as another commenter noted, regulatory capture is one).
PhD was always a fools errand. There are only so many possible professorships with tenure and the people there never seem to retire because obviously they like being paid that good money and being basically able to do what they want.
Yes, it’s much better to spend “$400,000 for a Research Project on Whether Ducks Enjoy Classical Music”, just to ensure not a single grant went unfulfilled.
We have a $1.78T deficit. The ducks and the mathematicians will need to take a cut at this point.
Money isn’t limited, as in we can just print more, but it comes at an inflationary cost: see the last 5 years. MMT doesn’t work.
Since money is limited, and we’re spending in a deficit, money shouldn’t be redistributed to another bad cause after something gets cut. Unfortunately, and all too often, it does.
One side cuts taxes to spend on blowing up the world’s energy market, another side raises taxes to buy votes among the people who pay 0 in taxes (or fund a study on if ducks like Mozart). They’re both wrong, and people are too blinded by the sports-team nature of politics to recognize this.
If the economy still has a pulse today it’s because of math. Literally linear algebra is what drives LLMs.
On the question on music and ducks, music seems something that humans universally get, but it is not clear if animals do so. Why we should not research it? What if music is the secret to human consciousness?
Cut the duck study and avoid blowing up the world’s energy markets for $1B a day. Nowhere in my comment did I argue for another trip to the sandbox.
The US had a balanced budget as little as 30 years ago. This current state of fiscal profligacy isn’t inevitable, except for the fact that both parties realized they could buy votes with your children’s financial wellbeing.
Academia already has a well-established structure of exploitation, with menial work falling down on grads and some undergrads, while credit for it being captured higher up in the tree.
Someone: it is bad that people are being treated poorly. We should effect changes such that they are no longer treated poorly.
Resident libertarian moron: uuuuhhhhhh have you considered that they voluntarily consented to being treated poorly? Actually this is the least poorly they could possibly be treated.
Also if they're solving problems to help LLM training in their domain, that's actually pretty useful contribution to science - and definitely more directly useful than the work that dominates actual research, i.e. chasing grants instead of researching.
"that's actually pretty useful contribution to science"
Why? Serious question. Surely the only people using the LLM for such specific STEM domains are the exact same people who are "chasing grants instead of researching." Certainly I can see how training an LLM on this stuff can help automate the process of grant-chasing, and maybe OpenAI can expand their homework cheating business to graduate schools. But I do not see how this stuff helps honest researchers, except a bit around the margins (e.g. perhaps Claude isn't so good at the Perl used in bioinformatics, that's a use case justifying some RLHF from a PhD).
It really seems like the main utility of this stuff is getting a higher score on Humanity's Last Exam and showing the customers/investors that actually Opus 4.9 is 2% smarter than GPT 5.5. Separately there are AlphaProof/etc-style LLMs for solving real research problems in math and CS, but those techniques don't even work for theoretical physics, let alone biology.
LLMs are actively used in research all the time, they help with finding and processing existing knowledge, forming and testing hypotheses, analyzing data, writing software, brainstorming, and countless other tasks that form actual research work, as distinct from "grant chasing" and "publishing papers", in which they help, too.
(I mean, OpenAI released GPT-Rosalind just yesterday, and - surprise - it's not meant for chasing grants.)
It's not 2023 anymore, it's 2026. LLMs are good enough to be useful. They have been for at least a year, and they keep getting better. You need to be living under a rock for the past few years to not notice that.
This doesn't even slightly answer my question. The incredibly frustrating thing about the AI discussion is the refusal to consider actual evidence because of shifting targets. In 2026 there is evidence that 2024 LLMs did enormous damage to scientific research in 2025: hallucinated citations, hallucinated experiements, an onslaught of unreadable prose, etc etc. But we can't talk about that, can we? That's old hat, everybody knows 2024 LLMs were stupid and useless. Instead we have to discuss our vibes about 2026 LLMs, and maybe in 2028 we'll be able to tell whether or not our vibes were correct.
LLMs couldn't do any damage with hallucinated citations - on the contrary, this is only ever a problem for people so clueless and uncaring that they didn't even bother reading what LLMs wrote for them. Hallucinated citations are evidence of fraud or level of uncaring unbecoming a scientist, or any professional on that matter.
"LLMs couldn't do any damage with hallucinated citations"
If you're saying stuff like this with a straight face then you are clearly not a scientist and you don't know what you're talking about. In 2021 there were maybe 10 papers with fictional citations. Even the publication mills at least linked to other junk papers. Now there are hundreds of thousands of papers with dishonest and useless bibliographies. This is because LLMs are an unbeatable force multiplier for dishonest and useless scientific work.
I am sure some legitimate academics are getting real use out of them. I am also sure that the net effect of LLMs on science is enormously negative, and it will take decades to fix the mess.
Unlike the industry, science has actual standards of conduct, which puts it in a unique position to fix it quickly - if only the journals were doing the one job they have.
Hallucinated citations == strong evidence of scientific fraud. Name and shame and don't publish.
Alas, what's happening only shows the emperor has no clothes. If anyone slept through the replication crisis, they surely can't ignore it now. Can't really blame LLMs for lighting up the structural corruption of scientific process for everyone to see.
If anything, it's doing us a favor - if the journal gatekeeping and peer review can't handle people putting literal, obvious bullshit in their papers today, think what else they aren't handling either, and for how long this has been the case.
Because then Anthropic would have to guarantee that those customers would actually get the service they're paying for.
At first it might be just a few customers on that higher plan, but it could quickly grow beyond what Anthropic could keep up with. Then Anthropic would have the problem that they couldn't deliver what those people would be paying for.
It's very likely that Anthropic is not short of capacity because they wouldn't have the money to get more, but because that capacity is not easy to get overnight in such big quantities.
Jobs were already lost because of AI capital investments. None of the hyper scalers had the cash flow to support the target investment levels and had to reduce labor.
I think you meant to reply this elsewhere? My comment was in response to the apparent social willingness to accept violence towards oligarchical behavior.
I disagree. I think that constitutional scholars have always known that it's not the written laws that hold the executive in check. Our system was designed so that the 3 branches would check each other. The Federalist Paper #51 explicitly calls this out - "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." [0]
The problem with any system like you are suggesting where "we need to stop letting lawyers write laws, and instead start writing verified programs" is the same as always - who enforces the law?
The cause of the dysfunction we have now is that congress has failed to check the power of the executive. Congress should have impeached and removed Donald Trump for treason and other high crimes after January 6th. He should have been convicted and felt the full force of the law around his neck for trying to interfere with the function of congress and overthrow the election.
Every problem we face with our government right now traces back to the same issue: Congress is not doing its job. Congress has the power to impeach and remove the president for threatening to nuke Iran. Congress has the power to stop the executive branch from starting illegal wars overseas. Congress has the power to punish ICE for executing citizens in the streets of Minneapolis.
Congress has failed to exercise this power for several reasons, a major one being that both the house and senate are no longer representative of the American people. The house has been limited in membership ever since the reapportionment act and the senate was always designed to favor wealthy landowners in slave states.
This results in placing massively disproportionate power in the hands of a tiny fraction of voters just because they live in the middle of nowhere, which in turn makes it very easy for the rich and powerful to game the system. There is no way forward for us as a country without reforming congress.
It isn't just congress failing to their job. We The People are also responsible for not ousting the freeloaders in congress who are taking our tax money and not doing the job they were elected to do.
We are the final check on making sure that government is serving us and not the other way around. The founders were pretty open about what they expected from us if that could no longer be accomplished within the framework they were putting into place. I'd like to think that we can still vote our way out of this problem, but I fear that between attempts from the government to suppress voters and the surprisingly large number of people content with the idea of a fascist dictator (so long as he's wearing their team's colors) we might have a hard time overcoming the fear, apathy, and learned helplessness in the rest of the population necessary to effectively insist on the changes we need.
I'm not very familiar with the American system, but aren't congress elections prone to gerrymandering which means they don't reflect too accurately the preferences of the people?
Gerrymandering is one the most powerful ways they suppress votes. They also like to do things like limit the number of polling places and put them out of the way with limited hours, pass laws that require documents many people don't have (while making those documents more difficult to obtain), removing the right to vote from people with criminal histories (while more aggressively policing and convicting the people/communities they don't want voting), spreading disinformation about voting dates/times/locations, creating confusing ballots, having heavy police presence at polling places and putting up speed traps/check points near them, making mail-in voting difficult or unreliable, and actively discourage participation with messaging about how voting doesn't accomplish anything or even that your support of a broken/corrupt system makes you complicit in it.
Even our two party/first past the post system discourages voting by limiting the choice people have in who they can realistically support in the first place.
I believe that the problem is that they also set up Congress with its own check, between two houses. They made it deliberately hard to pass legislation, which means they cannot effectively balance the other two branches.
Congress spent decades ceding power to the executive because it realized it could not do anything itself. And now it's stuck.
Not clear how both Amd and Intel not only lost the smartphone fight but also lost in their own field (aka servers, laptops, desktops)
15 years ago if I told you that windows would be running better on ARM you would call me crazy.
reply