Hacker News Reader

Comment by customguy | Hacker News Reader

To me this doesn't seem like a step towards those foundations, but another layer of of loss of agency. You can run "a" model locally, but you cannot make it locally (at least not for the purpose of just talking software into existence). You need to slurp up all the internet first, so to speak. And even if you could do that, you still depend on people putting new things onto the internet for you to slurp up. So is it really my software? What if it breaks or I want a new feature and AI corp nuked my account? How much did I learn during my time having it done for me?

And before anyone mentions it, I don't think the fact that I need a compiler and a manual and some example software to learn from is quite on the same level. I might be wrong but I would need some convincing.

View on HN

You can also run a computer at home but you cannot even make a 486 from scratch at home, let alone something released more recently.

I agree on the SaaS side of the story, that's why it is so important to have open models.

Agreed, I wasn't advocating on using LLMs, even "open" or "local" ones.

i think "self-hosted", "home" or "company"/"office" should be the term we use, instead of "local", since

1. every LLM is _local_ in relation to the location the storage and/or the computers hosting/using it

2. the LLM running in your home is only _local_, until u step out of the door, but if you have some tailscale or zerotier VPN setup, u can still access it _remote_ly...

How does any of that impact a user who just has a specific task they want to accomplish and who doesn't have a CS degree?

Is it "their" software? Sure, if it meets their needs. What if the AI changes? Who cares, I already have the software. All the what ifs are solved by taking the current code, stuffing into into any AI you like today, and getting the new version.

As a user, this all sounds like a great deal. Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework, meanwhile the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.

> What if the AI changes? Who cares, I already have the software. All the what ifs are solved by taking the current code, stuffing into into any AI you like today, and getting the new version.

It's just dismissing the question. If the AI changes, just use one that didn't change. If it gets 1000x more expensive, just use one that remains cheap.

Apart from the fact that without new input to learn from, things will probably stagnate in new exciting ways, on top of the stagnation, bloat and slop we worked so hard to make a culture over the last decades.

> Devs can continue wringing their hands over code quality and long term support and architecture and preferred framework

I mentioned none of those things.

> the user who had an itch got it scratched and didn't need nor care about any of those things.

And I don't care about that user when it comes to the question of my agency and autonomy. It's like people discussing how to make cats do tricks and someone going "just get a dog".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com