There's no reason a smart TV MUST have an account with the manufacturer or seller unless they want to enshittify it.

You may want to have accounts with various streaming services or perhaps you just want it to stream video you have on a NAS.

What are the use cases for local AI models that actually require running on macOS? Surely a commodity x86 system is more appropriate?

Is there even the software support for LLMs on macOS?

Actually yes there is...

I'm still learning about this myself, but, from what I understand the M series of chips that Apple has come out with, with it having a CPU, GPU, and shared unified memory....it makes them uniquely capable of running local models on them...decently large models depending on how much you fork over for RAM. These M chips also have a special end unit for "intelligence processing" I think they call it.

The M5 chips just coming out look to be very good at this and it is speculated the M5 Ultra will be a high performance work horse.

Apple may have missed the mark for running AI, but the appear to have hit a home run on the hardware aspect of it.

I've seen demos on YouTube of someone hooking up like 4-5 Mac Studios that were maxed out M3 ultras I think and they were running extremely LARGE LLMs locally and getting cloud level numbers on them.

Of course these were like $10K each boxes.....but the level of model they were running would have cost my MANY more times trying to match them with NVIDIA GPU cards.....

i believe there are OSX friendly tools like ollama that make downloading, and running LLMs quite easy....and of course there's the latest sensation...OpenClaw, that folks are buying up Mac Minis for....to have multiple agents running using models of your. Choice (commercial clound or local) of models and giving them persistent memory, and ability to do a lot of things for you...depending on how comfortable you are with giving said agents long leashes and capabilities....

Do look a bit on YouTube on these topics....it's actually quite interesting.

These M chips are already giving the home user the capability to use models almost as large and on the cutting edge as the big companies.....more than enough for most users.

Right now, there's nothing x86 that can really match them...at least not for the money.

Look for a gaming monitor with no WiFi option

Do they make these in 65" or larger?

If not, that's not really useful....no one wants to have everyone in the family and/or guests huddled around a 25" monitor in the corner of the living room you know....

;)

Everyone's (rightfully) bitching about this, and I agree, but none of that solves the problem.

What's the alternative? Give me a TV brand that gives you, ideally, a dumb TV, but alternatively a decent smart TV that is easy to work with.

Responsiveness is an important, and often overlooked, characteristic. It's important.

Brand/model recommendations; go!

t depends on if they send you a tax notice or not. There was an outfit in Ohio that I used to purchase a lot of electronics from. One year I got a note from them listing my purchases, and that I would have to pay taxes on. That was a pain in the ass.

I think they got "caught", or had new accountants or something. But yes - if you can avoid the sales tax, it's a significant discount.

Interesting, I've never received any such notices....but most of my stuff is one off buys...not repeated purchases from a single site...

Believe it or not, I STILL find it pays to compare Amazon to maybe smaller retailers....for shipping vs tax!!!

I find a lot of sellers out there that still do not charge sales tax and some times...that makes it cheaper than Amazon...

Prime has LONG been a good deal for me.....but here recently with them adding commercials to Prime videos/movies....I'm starting to step back and re-evaluate....

if there was ever a moment for a robot to flip out and kill people, this was the one

Addiction is neurological, not chemical. Addiction is the consequence of the rewards centre of the brain becoming dependent on stimulation and that can be from anything.

Do try to make an effort.

Doesn't have to be a credit card. A class III user digital certificate requires a verification firm be certain of a person's identity through multiple proofs. If an age verification service issued such a certificate, but anonymised the name the certificate was issued to to the user's selected screen name, you now have a digital ID that proves your age and optionally can be used for encryption purposes to ensure your account is only reachable from devices you authorise.

produces higher quality sperm

That's really important for the sperm destined for the septic system, sure...

And those come with warnings, legal penalties on vendors who sell to known addicts or children, legal penalties for abusers, financial penalties to abusers, etc. There are cars which have their own breathalisers.

So, no, society has said that the responsibility is distributed. Which is correct.

It is possible to verify age to the same degree (or better) than any "age verification service" without any sort of privacy invasion.

A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".

*goes off grumbling and looks for anyone he can shout at to get off his lawn.

It is legitimate for any service that constitutes a "common carrier" to be free of consequences for what it carries. But Meta do not claim to be a "common carrier", and that changes the nature of the playing field substantially. As soon as a service can inspect messages and moderate, it is no longer eligible to claim that it is not responsible for what it carries.

Your counter-argument holds some merit, but runs into two problems.

First, society deems any service that monitors to be liable. That may well be unreasonable at the volumes involved, but that's irrelevant. Meta chose to monitor, knowing that this made it liable in the eyes of society. There are, of course, good reasons for that - mostly, society is sick and twisted, and criminality is encouraged as a "good thing" and "sticking it to the man". This is a very good reason to monitor. But Meta chose to have an obscenely large customer base (it didn't need to), Meta chose to monitor (it is quite capable of parking itself in a country where this isn't an obligation), and Meta chose to make the service addictive (which is a good way of encouraging criminals onto the scene, as addicts are easy prey).

Second, Meta has known there's been a problem for a very long time (depression and suicides by human moderators is a serious problem Meta has been facing for many years at this point). Meta elected to sweep the problem under the rug and create the illusion of doing something by using AI. If a serivce knows there's a problem but does nothing, and in particular a very cheap form of nothing, then one must consider the possibility said service is not solving said problem because there's more money to be made by having the abusers there than by removing them.

Can one block every criminal action? Probably not, which means that that's the wrong problem to solve. Intelligent, rational, people do not try to solve actually impossible problems. Rather, they change the problems into ones that are quite easy. This is very standard lateral thinking and anyone over the age of 10 who has not been trained in lateral thinking should sue their school for incompetence.