Can someone explain what is the downside of turning up the feature for optimizing streaming latency? This seems like a feature that should naturally be default??? Doesn't everyone want a faster response? I can't see it affect cost when I do.

@JJ Certainly! While optimizing for low latency in streaming is generally desirable, especially for responsive conversations, there are a few potential downsides to consider: 1. **Quality vs. Speed Trade-off**: Lower latency can sometimes mean a compromise on the audio quality, as less time is available for processing and compression. This might not be suitable for use cases where high fidelity audio is crucial. 2. **Increased Resource Usage**: To achieve lower latency, systems may need to use more processing power or more efficient algorithms, which could potentially increase operational costs, even if it's not immediately visible in the cost structure. 3. **Network Stability**: Low latency streaming is more sensitive to network fluctuations. In scenarios with unstable network conditions, optimizing for low latency could lead to more frequent buffering or interruptions. 4. **Compatibility Issues**: Some devices or networks may not support the protocols or methods used to minimize latency, leading to compatibility issues. 5. **Battery Life**: On mobile devices, the increased processing required for low latency streaming can lead to faster battery drain. It's important to balance these factors based on the specific needs of your application and your users. While low latency is a significant advantage for interactive voice applications, the decision to optimize for it should be made after considering the potential trade-offs.

it's like asking the system to generate responses in require approximate time with quality check/control as optional. so even if voice doesn't sounds good skip it, and return whatever you have.