Pretty much this, period.
Give people the fucking option.

Na, they haven't made it hard.
They just haven't made it easy.

In fact- there's general surprise that they didn't make it hard.
The difficulty is in reverse engineering undocumented shit. In the past- there have been actual barriers in place.

/me looks at his 128GB MacBook Pro with 8TB of storage.

Oh, ya?

Oh, of course.
NV just cut off support for the 1080Ti, while AMD just cut off support for.... /me looks at notes.... APUs it produces right now.

Your apologism is both sad and funny at the same time.

RDNA1 and RDNA2 were specifically listed.
There are RDNA2 APUs in production by AMD right this very minute.

The part you're missing is that these "old" generations are still in production today.
RDNA2 is the SOTA in AMD APUs.

I don't know what you mean by that.

The Chinese ones are refined, well made, great EV tech, and cheaper.

Let's put it this way- there are devices being manufactured by AMD, right now, with now-deprecated GPUs.
If you have a handheld PC, you have one of them.

Holy fuckballs, lol.
1) You can't be stupid enough to make this assertion- particularly in a discussion about about devices that use quantum quasiparticles.
2) So? Do you know what a hole is?
3) Do you think field effect transistors lack PN junctions?
4) And brains are optimized for deterministic operation. If they weren't, you wouldn't have observably classical neurons within them operating at a high temperature.

FETs follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. That is- they are inherently quantum mechanical, and the uncertainty involved in the interaction between their quasiparticles (P, N) is only deterministic statistically- same as a neuron in which would have "quantum mechanical effects in its synapses". I am getting the impression that you can't see just how thoroughly your position is shown to be false, here.
If "quantum mechanical effects at the synapses" equates to consciousness (I'd still love to hear you explain that, lol) then transistors fit the bill as well.
You can't argue this. You'll need to find a new gap to squeeze your god into.

You throw around terms like they're spaghetti at a wall.
Keep waving your hands trying to invoke your mysticism. You convince no one who isn't already desperate to believe there's something magical operating in their brain.

Why?

Beyond that being a logically false statement.... lol, sure.
To disprove it, all you need to do is produce one single person who can't understand a rational argument. Do better.

self-aggrandizement? Noting a particular history of disenfranchisement laws is aggrandizement?

Sometimes you seem like a pretty smart guy. Sometimes, I really feel like you might be going senile.

So is quantum tunneling in a transistor.
That quantum mechanical processes mediate classical interactions is not new.

Sigh.
I'll repeat myself, and you cannot show otherwise: There is no evidence of non-determinism in the human brain. None.
Not even various papers on noted QM effects make the absurd claim that the brain is not governed by classical physics.

I've made it very clear- you can't have it both ways.
If "Quantum Mechanical" effects give rise (by magic, since I'd live to hear your dissertation on how an RNG produces consciousness or free will) to consciousness, then transistors have it too.
Like it or not, computers and brains are in the same boat here.

Unless you can provide evidence of quantum mechanical effects at a macroscopic scale for neurons (remember, neurons are fucking *huge* compared to transistors on modern CPUs) then you must accept that all current evidence suggests that the brain is classical.

That's not how a democratic republic works, and you know it.

You elect representatives. If your representative supports EVs, and you don't want to support EVs- then take the necessary action to replace them.

You're not the customer- why would a free market offer you anything in this instance?

Easy for you, a technical person familiar with LLMs and WebAssembly

I'm not talking about how to develop LLM inference servers. You don't have to understand WebAssembly in order to run a WebAssembly program in your browser any more than you have to understand Javascript to run Javascript in your browser. It's *less* technological knowledge than using the Play store. And installing Ollama is no more difficult than installing any other app.

Your difficulty conceptions are simply wrong.

I don't understand your response. Was "life breathed into" the ancient Chinese robotic orchestras and singers, or the Islamic robotic orchestra and mechanical peacocks?

And re: myths, the aforementioned myths literally involved *humans* making the automatons. Ajatasatru for example, the maker of the robots to guard the artifacts of the Buddha, was also famous for using a mechanical war chariot of great complexity with whirling spiked maces, and later one with spinning scythes - not the sort of things you would describe as having "life breathed life into", and actually quite similar to Leonardo Da Vinci's chariot (in some versions he made it/them, in other versions it was a gift from the Indras). As for the robots guarding the Buddha, in one version they're literally powered by water wheels. In another version, Greco-Romans had a caste of robot makers, and to steal the technology, a young Indian man was reincarnated as a Greco-Roman, marries the daughter of a robot-maker, and sews the plans for robots into his thigh, so that when he's murdered by killbots as he tries to flee with the plans, they still make it back to India with his body. Yes, ancient Indian legends literally involved robot assassins.

And as for the robots in the Naravahandatta, they were literally made by a carpenter, and are specifically described as "lifeless wooden beings that mimic life".

Even with Hephestos, a literal god, they're very much not described as merely having life breathed into them - they're literally described as having been crafted (the Greeks were very much into machinery and described it in similar terms), and they behave as if something that were programmed (the Kourai Khryseai are perhaps the most humanlike of Hephaestus's creations, but even they aren't described like you would describe biological beings, they're described for being remarkable for how lifelike they were). Of course it wasn't for-loops and subroutines, people had no conception of such a thing, but his creations behaved in a "programmed" way, not as things with free will.

I don't know why some people are so insistent on imagining that "sci-fi" things have to be recent. They're not. There were literally space operas being written in Roman times. Not scientifically accurate, of course, but sci fi things - including automated things that mimic intelligence - simply is not new.