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
I can't run google on my computer on my own, but I'm totally dependent on it.

>>amadeu+mp1
There are many alternatives though. It is not like Google has a search monopoly or office product monopoly, or e-mail provider monopoly. It is quite possible to cut out a lot of Google from one's life, and not even complicated to do that.

>>zelphi+Rq1
Is your argument there are no LLM alternatives?

>>pkilgo+zx1
Not really, no. Though I would argue if Google disappeared tomorrow, as a private person you would probably do mostly fine. The point being, that your dependence is most likely not that strong actually. Unless you got important mail arriving at only your gmail mailbox. That would be dangerous. I lost several good accounts on other websites that way in the past. Now I don't register anything useful on gmail addresses any longer, in fact don't actually use gmail any longer, unless I still have some old accounts that I still didn't migrate away out of laziness.