I see absolutely no benefit to me as a end user for a local model which is going to take up more of my CPU and memory and slow down my machine. I almost always have Internet and if I don't then not having access to a AI model is the least of my concerns.
I don't think many realize that most LLM embedded automation, pipelines, products will soon be able to run extremely cheaply on models < 100B parameters.
Frontier models will be used for coding/creation use cases, yes. But for all the pseudo-deterministic, pipeline, analysis style things there will be no practical benefit to running frontier models, only additional cost.
Gemma 4 26B outperforms most 100-200B models that I've tested for reasoning and structured output.
Gemma 4 12B can consistently select where to click on browser images given a minimal prompt, and do so very quickly.
If you're building a automation as a company you definitely won't want to take on the long term maintenance overhead of running your own models for some automation project.
Your claim is effectively that companies don't care about operational/cloud costs. Even pre-LLM, companies regularly assessed and tried to pare down cloud spend.
All 3 years?
I'd rather not have intensive compute needed shifted onto my personal machine which I want to use for something else.
As the sibling says this is why people want smaller but still performant models.
It would be selfish and unethical not to in my view. And ultimately the data is just being used in order to improve the models and benefit us, not for anything nefarious.
The obsession is for leaving hostile and abusive entities, the corporations or the people who fund them that have a horrible track record in regards to ethicality, rights and respect & human dignity.
It's like using Gmail and expecting them not to train their AI models on your data - how can you expect that when they're giving you a secure, reliable, highly functional email client completely for free?
The digital economy only works if everyone pays their fair share. If you don't want to give your data then you are really harming everyone by slowing down AI development for everyone else.
If I pay you for a service, what implicit right should you have to then continue to profit in perpetuity by storing the data I paid you to process?
If LLMs were free your Gmail analogy might hold up. They aren’t, and so it doesn’t.
AI development can continue with the data folks opt into, or with the data AI companies incessantly scrape with reckless disregard for polite system loads. AI development does not require retaining all user inputs forever.
My disinterest is in sharing my intellectual IP. Most people up to now, have never shared this much of their intellectual IP with a company. Name one product through human history before that got this much data and insight into human thinking and now can use your most intimate conversations, ideas and needs for non-training purposes?
You can't even opt out of that! At least for the training data you can opt-out.
"real" property or not. You agree that we have some right to our own outputs, right? Is that not dignity, to say "I want my outputs protected".
Seems like you think that your ideas should be free, as you called it information. How about you back that up with action... please send me all your most intimate, valuable ideas. Oh no, you don't feel comfortable? Then why are you sharing it with companies?
For example, I think ideas are incredibly valuable as we've discussed. I think theft of them is a norm and then disempowered opinions are conditioned upon the people to make stealing their output easier.
I also share my ideas with companies such as chatting with LLMs but I talk about it because I'm unhappy with it and think I should not forget (and neither should you) that ultimately a valuable asset is being handed to them free. No, actually, I'm paying them for that. And I think that shouldn't be forgotten. When a better alternative is available, or I'm ready, I'm out.