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 don't feel like being dependent on LLM coding tools is much of an issue, you can very easily switch between different vendors. And I hope that open weight models will be "good enough" until we get a monopoly. In any case, even if you are afraid of getting too dependent on AI tools, I think everyone needs to stay up to date on what is happening. Things are changing very quickly right now, so no matter what argument you may have against LLMs, it may just not be valid any more in a few months

>>0j+HD2
> I think everyone needs to stay up to date on what is happening. Things are changing very quickly right now, so no matter what argument you may have against LLMs, it may just not be valid any more in a few months

This actually to me implies the opposite of what you’re saying here. Why bother relearning the state of the art every few months, versus waiting for things to stabilize on a set of easy-to-use tools?