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.
The hard part with 3d part creation isn’t the graphical interface or language, it’s actually describing and translating part requirements to a manufacturable design, weighing material, weight, fit, geometric, and cost tradeoffs. Openscad, opencascade, etc have been around for a long time and have specs for describing features in a way that llm should be able to handle, but if all the part constraints were available it’s far faster to make accurately in Solidworks.
This is my experience too. I took a course a long time ago in design for manufacturing, and it became abundantly clear that just because you can conceive of an idea doesn't mean that you can build it. That requires a lot more work and technical know-how that isn't always put into books or other "training data".
Just yesterday I had an LLM write an openscad module for generating a 2d rounded rectangle. It worked great! I then tried to get it to write a module to extrude a 2d shape into a 3d shape and it failed spectacularly several times before I gave up.
Interesting. I’m building a SaaS around this idea. And I managed to do things waaay more complex than that using LLMs. Especially “several times”. My AI can do a parametric trophy cup from one prompt in a couple of attempts, I would be shocked if it didn’t know how to make rectangular cube…
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.
> 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.
They already tried that with the "Core Technology" fee, and the EU smacked them for it. So doing what you propose is probably a non-starter.
maybe the top car brands can only accept gas from one overpriced gas station, and open the car gas DRM as a license to other stations for a fee.
i know some people like to jump at solving technical problems, but sometimes yall need to chill and read the problem twice to be sure the problem is technical to begin with.
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.
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.
If an LLM, apple or otherwise, runs on a phone, with audio input and output, then airpods and AliExpress five dollar earbuds should both be able to perform the I/O. I don't see a technical reason the latter is impossible. Indeed, it seems like it should work with the phone mic and speaker and no headset, too.
This isn't rocket science: audio goes into mic => STT engine => translation model => TTS engine => audio comes out of speaker. As a fellow hacker here, you could piece together something like this in a weekend on your computer for fun.
As for your question though: they can charge a subscription for using their LLM if they want, or charge for this specific app/feature of iOS. Or just be like me: whenever I'm about to execute on a business plan, I ask myself: "Is this business plan economically feasible without breaking the law?" And if it is not, then I do not do that plan. So far I haven't been cited for illegal conduct by any unions of dozens of countries, so it appears this tactic works.
By EU DMA, Apple is not allowed to develop a free feature in iOS (!) in order to recoup the cost by restricting it to their own brands and crushing the competition with it in ANOTHER product-segment (in this case, Headphones).
They could easily make this live translation feature a separate app using publicly available iOS-APIs. Every competitor would be able to develop and provide the same feature.
Ah, not integrated enough for them? Fair enough, then whatever further integration they see fit needs to provide interoperability for competitors.
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.
> 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.
Let’s be serious for a moment. They sell iPhones with enough margin to recoup that investment.
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.
Mostly im sure, but using older and simpler technology does have benefits when it is going to be used on ships traveling for decades at a time through space. Seemingly the mass of ships in the Alien universe doesn't seem to matter too much so chunky old tech that is easier to repair and hopefully more robust could make ships both cheaper and more likely to return from the apparently not uncommon ship disasters.
There are many varietals of rice. Most do not grow in marsh land. Farmers often do flood the fields at the beginning of a rice growing season in order to drown out any competing plants. Flooding is not necessary though. Rice will grow with normal irrigation.
Yes. Rice tolerated flooding better than weeds so it is used as a cheap and easy weed control. Also some places grow fish alongside rice in the same land, getting some extra pest control and fertilizer for free.
iirc, it is LSD, but not LSD-25. Which is the kind usually synthesised and sold on blotters. LSD-25 was so named because it was Hoffman's twenty fifth experimental LSD variant.
>> it's just the best mathematical model we have for physics that are too extreme for us to measure
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.
reply