jj4211

Ok, fine in that scenario a few decades from now others will trust us....

My general point is that discussing the intricacies of potential local AI model usage is way over the head of the people that would even in theory care about the facile "AI PC" marketing message. Since no one is making it trivial for the casual user to actually do anything with those NPUs, then it's all a moot point for this sort of marketing. Even if there were an enthusiast market that would use those embedded NPUs without a distinct more capable infrastructure, they wouldn't be swayed/satisfied with just 'AI PC' or 'Copilot+', they'd want to know specs rather than a boolean yes/no for 'AI'.

The issue is that to the extent that might even make sense, no major player is actually doing anything to help that happen. Every big player is exclusively focused on taking AI use cases into their datacenters, because that's the way to maintain control and demand subscriptions.

If you did do it, then the users would complain that the 'AI feature' as executed on their puny NPU is really slow compared to what the online alternative does.

So that scenario is a hypothetical, and they are trying to make sales based on now. 'AI PC' doesn't make any sense because people imagine what you describe, but in reality just cannot tell a difference because nothing works any differently for their 'AI experience'. Their experience is going to be a few niche Windows features work that most people don't even know about or would want.

Well, first Dell's use of 'confused' is mainly a way to walk "away" from AI as a marketing strategy without having to walk it "back" (they can't walk it back: Microsoft will keep Copiloting it up, the processor comparies will keep bundling NPUs, and the consumer exposure to AI will continue to have nothing to do with any of the 'AI PC' or not). So 'confused' is a way to rationalize the absence of 'AI PC' in their marketing strategy without having to actually change what they are doing.

But to the extent 'confusing' may apply, it's less about 'AI' and more about 'AI PC'. What about this 'AI PC' would impact your usage with AI, for most people the answer is 'not at all', since mostly it's over the internet. So for the layperson, an 'AI PC' just enables a few niche Windows features no one cares about. Everything pushing around the 'AI' craze is well away from actually running on the end user devices.

The real 'quiet part' would be that they are avoiding it because a large number of people hate 'AI'. To say they are 'confused' is still keeping the quiet part quiet...

More to the point, the casual consumer isn't going to dig into the nitty gritty of running models locally and not a single major player is eager to help them do it (they all want to lock the users into their datacenters and subscription opportunities).

On the Dell keeping NPUs in their laptops, they don't really have much of a choice if they want modern processors, Intel and AMD are all-in on it still.

It's just a softer thing to say than 'a lot of people hate AI and it's alienating potential customers'. They can't come out and say that out loud, they don't want to piss off Microsoft too much and they aren't going to try to do NPU-free systems (it's not really possible). They aren't going to do anything to 'fight back' against the AI that people hate (they can't), so their best explanation as to why they pull back from a toxic brand strategy is that 'people just don't care' rather than 'people hate this thing that we are going to keep feeding'.

But if they need to rationalize the perspective, an "AI" PC does nothing to change the common users experience with the AI things they know, does not change ChatGPT or Opus or anything similar, that stuff is entirely online. So for the common user, all 'AI' PC means is a few Windows gimmicks that people either don't care about or actively complained about (Recall providing yet another way for sensitive data to get compromised).

In terms of "AI" as a brand value, the ones most bullish about AI are executives that like the idea of firing a punch of people and incidently they actually want to buy fewer PCs as a result. So even as you can find AI enthusiastic people, they still don't want AI PCs.

For most people, their AI experience has been:

• News stories talking about companies laying off thousands or planning to lay off thousands for AI, AI is the enemy
• News stories talking about some of those companies having to rehire those people because AI fell over, AI is crap
• Their feeds being flooded with AI slop and deepfakes, AI is annoying
• Their google searches now having a result up top that, at best, is about the same as clicking the top non-sponsored link, except that it frequently totally botches information, AI is kind of pointless

For those that have actually positive AI experience, they already know it has nothing to do with whether the PC is 'AI' or not. So it's just a brand liability, not a value.

And I'd be more ok with LLM technology in general if not for:

• The rampant copyright infringement
• The overcommitment of financial and actual resources

In and of itself, ok a neat little trick with some utility so long as it isn't taken too seriously.

The people wanted actual reasoning AI, not generative AI. They didn't expect us to devote most of our nominal economic activity toward a few big tech companies to get it. They didn't expect them to assert that text generators are 'reasoning' and when called on it declare that it's not reasoning as humanity has known it, but here's some buzzwords to justify us claiming it's a whole new sort of reasoning that's just as valuable.

Probably not invade, but some more targeted clandestine operations seem an actually possible outcome...

Practically speaking, if a foreign state feels they are going to get in a violent fight anyway, they may be more inclined to take action that doesn't require a lot of people to make some key strategic changes.

Outlook not so good... nailed that one too.