#starred

iPhone 16e #

Apple announced the iPhone 16e yesterday, the successor to the third-gen iPhone SE. The iPhone 16e marks the first budget iPhone in the second-gen body, with a notch at the top of the screen and a lack of a home button.

The use of a specifically lowercase ‘e’ is interesting, especially since the last phones to use a single letter for differentiating models was 7 years ago with the iPhone XR and XS. The fact that the iPhone 16e’s name is attached to the iPhone 16 line of phones seemingly implies that Apple is going to start launching budget phones similar to Google’s approach, where a Pixel a series phone is released a few months after a line of normal Pixel phones.

In terms of the pricing, I think that reactions are a bit overblown as to comparing it to the prices of previous iPhone SEs. While the $599 price is much higher, I would argue that you get much more for that money compared to buying a third-gen SE. Although the $429 price of the SE 3 is pretty nice for getting into the Apple ecosystem, the main issue lies in the extremely old body and screen that makes up the phone’s actual interface. Most of the $429 you spend on the phone is instead allocated towards the A15 Bionic chip that competes well against other phones in its price bracket, but I would argue that performance intensive tasks that take advantage of the chip are definitely not in the workflows of most budget phone users. Instead, in almost all cases, buying a iPhone from one or two generations behind is a better deal in terms of the hardware. Additionally, since the software lifespans of Apple’s devices are great, software isn’t a concern when buying an older phone since it should still be able to get updates for a long period of time.

Therefore, I think that having a more expensive SE that actually has decent specs is definitely worth the price bump, as big as it might be. However, it still begs the question of whether it’s actually worth buying the 16e over a last-gen phone. Apple is mostly relying on Apple Intelligence to sell the phone, dedicating a large amount of the launch event to showing demos of different features with varying degrees of usefulness. Since the phone doesn’t really add anything of value other than that, I would say that it’s almost always a better idea just to get an iPhone 15-series phone if you can find a large enough discount on it. However, Apple isn’t relying on people who take time to find good deals for phones: they’re relying on people walking into a carrier store, trying to buy a cheap phone for themselves or a family member to stay connected using iMessage and other Apple services. For that, I think that the iPhone 16e is a pretty decent phone, one that’s more affordable than the normal iPhone 16 but doesn’t hold the massive drawbacks of the third-gen iPhone SE.

In terms of hardware, the SE line has always had to have some diminished specs to differentiate it from the normal iPhones. For the iPhone 16e, this seems to be mostly focused to three different aspects: the notch, the single camera, and the lack of MagSafe. The notch on the screen is a bit disappointing but definitely makes sense as a differentiating feature, and I’m happy that it’s the only main drawback to the 6.1-inch screen that’s on the device. In terms of the single 48MP camera on the back of the phone, Apple has been advertising it as fully fulfilling the roles of a normal 1x camera and a 2x telephoto camera in a 2-in-1 camera system. I find this to be a really interesting choice, since this necessitated putting a more technically advanced camera on the phone just to avoid putting a dedicated telephoto camera. However, to consumers, the amount of cameras on a phone serves as an extremely visible separation between different price ranges of phones, meaning that Apple was required to put a single camera on the 16e to distance it from the normal iPhone 16. A lot of people have been complaining about the lack of MagSafe, but I don’t think I can really speak on it as I haven’t used MagSafe a lot. Though, the lack of it is likely also due to wanting to increase separation between the 16e and normal 16, with MagSafe being viewed as a slightly more premium feature to Apple.

Like previous SEs, the phone features an up-to-date A18 chip, though as noted before, scoring well in benchmarks is very different to the actual tasks that users of the phone will actually be doing. This leads to the main reasoning behind the large differentiation in hardware between the iPhone 16e and normal iPhone 16, since the chip can’t serve as a large place of comparison between the phones.

Contrary to seemingly what a lot of people are saying, I think the 16e gets you a much better phone at a much better price compared to the third-gen iPhone SE, but I still don’t think it’s really worth its price compared to a last-gen phone.

DeepSeek-R1 is not Sputnik #

DeepSeek-R1’s lead is fundamentally different than what Sputnik’s was for many reasons, the primary one being the difference in access to powerful GPUs. DeepSeek did not design R1 to be trained on H800s just to see if it was possible—there were monetary and political incentives for them to create a powerful model on such limited hardware. In contrast, American AI companies have not felt any need to optimize model training, since they are much more focused on a different goal: fast, cheap inference. DeepSeek has been doing great work, but their work should not be any sort of scare for the American AI market, especially since R1 benchmarks extremely closely with o1.

As an analogy, I think of it as a student writing a compiler: it takes hard work for someone of their age, and fortells their ability to do much more complicated work as a future computer scientist. However, the same compiler could have just been created by a computer scientist who has specialized in compiler design for a decade. In this same way, DeepSeek is training impressive models on limited hardware, showing their architecture’s potential for training an even more powerful model if they had access to more powerful hardware. However, OpenAI already has access to the powerful hardware and is training their models using it, allowing them to easily train models with the same performance as R1, even with a worse model architecture. Therefore, even if DeepSeek is a student who—through a lot of hard effort—created a compiler, OpenAI is an experienced researcher who creates a similar result with much less effort.

Since American AI companies have access to the supplier of powerful GPUs (Nvidia) and now know a more performant training architecture through DeepSeek’s open research, there’s nothing stopping them from easily creating more powerful reasoning models than DeepSeek-R1. That’s the main difference compared to Sputnik—there shouldn’t be any perceived technical gap because DeepSeek’s innovation is unnecessary in the eyes of American AI companies (but it will still benefit these companies immensely).

Additionally, it’s not as if DeepSeek is using Chinese-made GPUs—if they were doing that, it would definitely should be a scare to American AI companies. But right now, DeepSeek and other Chinese AI companies still have a heavy reliance on Nvidia, allowing the United States to easily control the technological gap between it and China.

AGI “for Humanity” #

Sam Altman is unreasonably good at convincing officials that his for-profit endeavours are actually net benefits for humanity. It’s pretty clear that he’s disillusioned himself to the true state of capitalism, where creating a larger OpenAI does not automatically translate into better conditions for the general public. He shows this way of thinking in posts like The Intelligence Age, which not-so-subtly converges to the necessity of additional funding (read: needing to creating a for-profit to raise said funding) to “make sure AI isn’t solely controlled by the rich”:

If we want to put AI into the hands of as many people as possible, we need to drive down the cost of compute and make it abundant (which requires lots of energy and chips). If we don’t build enough infrastructure, AI will be a very limited resource that wars get fought over and that becomes mostly a tool for rich people.

This was back in November, an eternity ago in the fast-paced AI scene (remember, AGI was only “a few thousand days” away!), and reaching AGI soon is still very much a speculation. Of course, Sam Altman is still interested in making more money, and still views OpenAI’s expansion as a universal benefit for the American people. Therefore, to him, AGI expansion is the only way forward: a technology that OpenAI will be perpetually close to creating, as the one in charge of defining what constitutes as AGI is Altman himself.

That’s the state in which the Stargate Project finds itself in, with the goal of reaching AGI eventually. But why should OpenAI and co. ever admit to actually creating AGI? The group currently has a nice $500B in funding, support from the U.S. government, and easily maintains the largest share of the AI market. None of this will disappear soon, especially as MGX and SoftBank can easily prioritize funding Altman’s pursuits on the off chance that AGI is actually achieved. And even if Stargate’s money sources somehow disappear, framing the project as a “net positive for all Americans” allows the U.S. government to easily support the endeavour (and grant OpenAI and Altman even more money).

Even if AGI is achieved through the Stargate Project, what would be the resolution? OpenAI claims that the project will create “hundreds of thousands” of American jobs. As pointed out by many Hacker News commenters, this cannot be predicted with any certainty and will likely result similarly to Foxconn’s $10B investment in Wisconsin (forecasted 13000 workers; actually ~1500), leading to the efforts solely benefitting OpenAI and the other private corporations. But even then, from Altman’s viewpoint, the endeavour is still a net positive for humanity: any increase to OpenAI’s valuation is just securing a future with more AI capabilities (which surely will be beneficial to all).

Note that this way of thinking isn’t limited to just Sam Altman: most “tech leaders” are figureheads for their respective companies and their political views and personal opinions should generally not be considered from a utopian point of view.