zlacker

>>tablet+(OP)
This article does not touch on the thing which worries me the most with respect to LLMs: the dependence.

Unless you can run the LLM locally, on a computer you own, you are now completely dependent on a remote centralized system to do your work. Whoever controls that system can arbitrarily raise the prices, subtly manipulate the outputs, store and do anything they want with the inputs, or even suddenly cease to operate. And since, according to this article, only the latest and greatest LLM is acceptable (and I've seen that exact same argument six months ago), running locally is not viable (I've seen, in a recent discussion, someone mention a home server with something like 384G of RAM just to run one LLM locally).

To those of us who like Free Software because of the freedom it gives us, this is a severe regression.

>>cesarb+Zl
Even FOSS-based development depends on walled gardens, it is evident every time when GitHub is down.

>>imhogu+4q1
IMO Github doesn't matter for FOSS because you have a lot of local clones, it won't disappear forever if Github goes down or deletes the repo there. Self-hosted alts are not 100% up either. And I actually find collaboration functions / easy PR contribution on Github highly beneficial. At the same time I hate the friction of all those private Gitlabs, Giteas or, God forbid, gitweb.

>>neop1x+bE1
> And I actually find collaboration functions / easy PR contribution on Github highly beneficial. At the same time I hate the friction of all those private Gitlabs, Giteas or, God forbid, gitweb.

FOSS is more about:

1. Finding some software you can use for your problem

2. Have an issue for your particular use case

3. Download the code and fix the issue.

4. Cleanup the patch and send a proposal to the maintainer. PR is easy, but email is ok. You can even use a pastebin service and post it on a forum (suckless does that in part).

5. The maintainer merges the patch and you can revert to the official version, or they don't and you decides to go with your fork.