I know what MLX is. MLX-swift is just a more accessible facade, but it's still MLX. The entire raison d'être for MLX is training and research. It is not a deployment library. It has zero intention in being a deployment library. Saying MLX replaces CoreML is simply nonsensical.
> But why would you use CoreML if not to access ANE?
The whole point of CoreML is hardware agnostic operations, not to mention higher level operations for most model touchpoints. If you went into this thinking CoreML = ANE, that's just fundamentally wrong at the beginning. ANE is one extremely limited path for CoreML models. The vast majority of CoreML models will end up running on the GPU -- using metal, it should be noted -- aside from some hyper-optimized models for core system functions, but if/when Apple improves the ANE, existing models will just use that as well. Similarly when you run a CoreML model on an A19 equipped unit, it will use the new matmul instructions where appropriate.
That's the point of CoreML.
Saying other options are "better, newer" is just weird and meaningless. Not only is CoreML rapidly evolving and can support just about every modern model feature, in most benchmarks of CoreML vs people's hand-crafted metal, CoreML smokes them. And then you run it on an A19 or the next M# and it leaves them crying for mercy. That's the point of it.
Can someone hand craft some metal and implement their own model runtime? Of course they can, and some have. That is the extreme exception, and no one in here should think that has replaced anything
