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
Yes, and it's even worse: if you think LLMs may possibly make the world a worse place, you should not use any LLMs you aren't self-hosting, because your usage information is being used by the creators to make LLMs better.

>>aaron_+Qn
I think that’s a bit of a leap; if you think LLMs make the world a worse place, there are many actions that you might take or not take to try to address that.

>>inadeq+fJ1
It's true that there could be other more impactful actions. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what else can be done.

>>aaron_+BS2
To be fair, I don't have any great specific ideas, but "Work Without the Worker" for example talks about how a lot of LLMs are fueled by neo-colonialist exploitation.

So I guess broadly speaking there could be strategies involving attempting to influence governmental policy rather than by consumer choice.

Or more radically, trying to change the structure of the government in general such that the above influences actually are more tractable for the common person.