Regardless of incentive; every company I just mentioned already does more to let users run LLMs than Apple. Google wrote Tensorflow, Meta designed Pytorch, Nvid

Regardless of incentive; every company I just mentioned already does more to let users run LLMs than Apple. Google wrote Tensorflow, Meta designed Pytorch, Nvidia wrote CUDA and the fundamental AI papers, and Microsoft distributes ONNX. By comparison, Apple... - Doesn't support PCIe inferencing hardware - Refuses to sign their competitor's drivers - Ships a neural engine they ignore for significant tasks - Doubled-down on the proprietary CoreML API and model format - Cut funding for OpenCL, their original Open Source GPGPU effort - Doesn't provide Open Source GPU compute primatives for their own GPU hardware - Actively ignores efforts to Open Source said hardware with better Open Source drivers - Continues converting models to their own format instead of fixing Apple hardware as a compute target ...and you mean to tell me that the M2 "predicted" LLMs? By supporting more memory? Apple was the last company out of everyone mentioned that even started working with AI. It's fine if you enjoy your Apple Silicon Mac, but it no more "predicted the rise of local LLMs" than AVX and SSE did in 1999. You made no effort to correlate the two ideas, and Apple's antagonistic role in open standards development kinda offsets whatever slight victory you can claim. Even Nvidia does more for local LLM development, and that's sad.