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.

Later, I had adapted to the culture around me. Such instincts rarely arise as it had become extrinsic.

with Russian gas.

Yoshihiro or Yoshiyuki would likely be called Yoshi by their friends.

(n)amow(?): (not) All my own work ?

It's not about which people per se, but how many, in aggregate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44246814

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

It's not only a measurement problem. Rather, the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, lead to this singularity. Sure, many physicists may doubt the existence of the singularity. They will need new physics, not only better equipment, to challenge it.