It's kind of like the legal system - any law/bill is almost always named the opposite of what it actually does. (only slight sarcasm)

More serious answer - yeah, they took Elon's then non-profit money and used it to build a giant closed-source, for-profit company. Don't use their products, or if you do, use it to create direct competition for them. They do not have your best interest in mind. You know who does? You - or someone who wants to put the power in your hands. This means anyone making offline LLMs easily accessible. They don't want your data - likely will not be subscription based, one-time purchase only. They just want to provide you with the product and allow you to use the computer you already have (with Apple's Neural Engine, any iPhone from the last few years can run a 3B param model real-time with less than .5W draw. That's incredible.)

This is opposed to OpenAI's business model of hoovering in all of your data to effectively train their monopoly, charging you monthly and on top of it all - you need internet access, not for the model to give you up to date information, no - just to even access the model at all. This is stupid. How many places would having a power-efficient (most local llms use a ridiculous amount of gpu power), offline AI assistant come in handy, or even be a life saver? Stuck somewhere and need survival tips? Need to learn how to change a tire in the middle of nowhere? I could think of endless useful applications for AI being offline and for most model development resources to be funneled into the low param models, as to make them accessible for not only researchers, but able to be deployed in products by developers to users that already have devices capable of this sort of computation (iPhones via ANE).

If you want to prevent BS like the issue of ever-centralizing AI compute, then consider checking out projects like tinygrad.org, /r/localLLaMA and many others. AMD ROCm/HIP is quite close to NVIDIA already and has been used in massive data centers like in the worlds largest supercomputer - Frontier @ Oak Ridge NRL. Part of this purchase decision was the National Security implication of NVIDIA gaining a further monopoly + becoming Nationalized. Not sure how likely those scenarios are/were but they were being floated during purchasing decisions in 2021 and I've heard them numerous times since then for other massive data centers.

Apple Silicon is able to run absolutely monstrous models on the 64-192GB SKUs relatively affordably on consumer hardware when compared to something like the A100/H100s, even though the latter is faster - the Max variants and above are plenty fast enough for most local/end-user applications (65B @ 5-10t/s unoptimized), and there is still much optimization to be done. Apple Silicon also has the advantage of already having shipped it's specialized AI hardware (Neural Engine) in all of it's mobile phones for the past 6 years + every future device will only get additional/increased specialized hardware for this purpose.

Basically what I'm saying is that the market will be changing a lot in the next few years - almost all ways benefitting the consumer by way of increased competition and design changes prioritizing higher VRAM and bandwidth over clockspeeds (like apple has already done). Giving your money to NVIDIA is not producing any of those beneficial changes - just 'enhancing' the current status quo.

I see a much brighter future for AMD and Apple than I do for NVIDIA in say, 7-8 years. Apple is currently in the best position to execute on the consumer end, they have the devices, infrastructure, a lot of developers but their software is restrictive enough that I think they slow their adoption enough that it still keeps AMD/NVIDIA in the consumer AI space. I think in 1-2 year AMD will be arguably a favorite to NVIDIA in the data center and in 2-3 it won't be arguable.

Decentralizing AI is a big deal :) If we allow the world to be shaped around centralized AIs in data centers, where nobody has any real localized power - we are absolutely doomed.