Bluetooth is huge and designed by committee. I don't know what GPT could help with; it's not that there aren't any good guides, it's that good guides are impossible. The protocol and stack are not designed to be understandable by a single human mind.

...unless it's the mind of Fabrice Bellard.

If you thought BT was huge, the cellular mobile specs (ETSI GSM etc.) are more than an order of magnitude bigger and more complex.

There is a document for the 3GPP specs that contains a list of the abbreviations used in the rest of the spec...

Its an 80 page document.

The ETSI documents I saw all tried really really hard to “don’t repeat yourself”, and, as far as I can tell, succeeded at that.

So, I guess this is a document that has two columns, the abbreviation and a reference to the document that defines it, without mentioning the long form?

I have worked on 3GPP implementations and honestly, not as bad as Bluetooth.

LLMs generate content that's statistically plausible, not factually accurate. We don't need more content about USB that might be mostly right.

I thought the USB specs were already LLM written? How else did we get USB Type C 3.2 Gen 4x4 AWD Superspeed 4.0 kbps?

this comment actually makes me mad because of how close to reality it feels. :-P

If you think about it, USB cables and ports are themselves nondetermistic, probabilistic models of connectivity :D