>> At least for the foreseeable future you still would like people to become interested and develop skills in these fields. These developments, and especially how they are presented, directly discourage that.
This assumption may well turn out to be correct, but it is not self-evident.
Nearly everyone who has ever got interested in mathematics got discouraged at some point and they left the field. Mathematics is very hard. Those very few that remained certainly have talent, but they also have characteristics that are necessary for success in a competitive field, which are perhaps less valuable per se. Such characteristics as may be over-represented in males for instance. This is not a point about gender differences, but about the intrinsic merit of different success factors.
It seems equally possible that the above assumption will turn out to be diametrically incorrect. People that would have been discouraged before LLMs will now retain their curiosity longer. Democratisation is surely a possible outcome.
Arguably, chess has never been as popular and accessible. And that discipline fell to AI three decades ago.
Could it be that relatively few quartz arrowheads were made, but that disproportionately many of them survived to have been subsequently discovered? Survivorship bias.
You can both be right. I live in a high trust society (Japan), but was raised elsewhere. When I first came here, there were times I had to suppress my instinct to take opportunistic advantage. That was intrinsic motivation.
Later, I had adapted to the culture around me. Such instincts rarely arise as it had become extrinsic.
Are you arguing that USA can no longer build parking lots due to environmental concerns? If so, that would indeed be remarkable since parking lots seem to be the facility that almost every US town has been able to build more than enough of.
I don't know what to say. I have tried to point it out more than once. I agree with EU's approach to earbud access, but am also sympathetic to Apple wrt to ROI on its LLM.
Perhaps the issue you seem to be having is that there's nuance in a position which tries to see an issue from both sides. Whatever is the problem with your comprehension, I advise you to reflect on the fact that others in this thread seem to get it and some have raised valid counterpoints or added relevant information.
You seem to be claiming that LLM is necessarily integral to iPhone. I am suggesting that need not be the case.
Remember, half of the consideration here is to find a way for Apple to recoup it's investment in LLM. Without creating anti-competitive forces in another market. If you have a different suggestion, or if you think Apple doesn't deserve compensation, make your case.
Gasoline is the very definition of a commodity. For now, at least, LLM is very from that.
As far as I know, Apple is unique in delivering inference on such a tiny device. For this they deserve a reward. The question is how. Like the EU, I don't believe Apple-only premium-priced locked-down earbuds is the right way.
Apple has clearly made very significant investment in creating a LLM small and efficient enough to do inference locally on an iPhone. This is excellent work and should be applauded.
For the EU, the issue is that Apple intends to recoup this investment through premium-pricing a different product in another category - one that has many low-cost competitors.
Wouldn't this best be resolved by productising the Apple LLM? Earphone API becomes open, as required by EU. However, use of the Apple LLM would be controlled by license. Earbud competitors could either license Apple's LLM, perhaps on a FRAND basis, or they could install their own LLM on an iOS device. Apple may bundle its LLM but must allow users to uninstall Apple's LLM, to free up space for alternatives.
In short, this isn't and shouldn't be about access to IOS for earbuds. EU is right in this. It's about monetising access to the Apple LLM, for which Apple deserves a revenue stream.
In the new TV series Alien Earth, the low resolution CRT monitors and clunky keyboards aboard interstellar spacecraft really stand out. Presumably it's an homage to the 80s' movies.
USB-C is presumably not the final word in USB connectors. Let's hope for both vision and better implementation.
What's wrong with having multiple set voltages? If it's the necessity of semiconductors, is that really so terrible in this day and age?
On a separate note, I hope they'd have properly managed EMI in this standard. USB has so many makers of varying quality, I can imagine cheap, badly-shielded cables and connectors playing merry hell with noise.