Protect your right to run local AI
righttointelligence.org
righttointelligence.org
EDIT: FYI https://ibb.co/nMYP34Rr
From their blog about the RTX Spark surface ultra
> purpose-built to develop and run up to 1 trillion-parameter frontier AI models locally
Google may not want it, but Microsoft has a ton of lobbying power, and being primarily an enterprise software and services company, they know local AI is important for their own customers, and will also be important to sustain the PC OEMs that are threatened by a move toward thin client like devices.
You'll be coerced into a subscription to unlock the processing power you already have, and it'll only be usable by official Microsoft, etc implementations.
They get your money, get to control you, and best of all, they don't have to run it themselves in their data centers
Now, you have to basically use their "Instant Ink" monthly service in order to print anything, based on my understanding. $6 for 50 pages a month: https://www.hp.com/us-en/print
(If you try using non-official cartridges, the printer may refuse to print entirely. If you cancel the sub, the printer will refuse to print until you renew or find DRM ink).
LG is pushing for subscription models in their fridge line-ups: https://www.pcmag.com/news/lg-wants-you-to-subscribe-to-your...
I don't see a price for the subscription yet, but it seems they are targeting 2030 for a subscription fee lock-in.
Intel did "Intel Upgrade Service", which locked already fabricated features on a CPU behind what is equivalent to today's same-day DLC - you paid more money, got a code, and it unlocked more cache and/or hyperthreading capabilities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Upgrade_Service
The backlash in 2010 on Intel was probably severe enough to delay it significantly, but with many industries trying it out (Cameras, TV's, fridges, cars, etc.), consumers probably won't have many options left.
The "don't print guns" laws? What lobby would that be? I actually agree that the US is very vulnerable to lobbying and that 3d printing restrictions are dumb, but I have no idea how you connected the two.
Gun control lobbying groups are pushing for these laws.
https://www.everytown.org/solutions/stop-spread-of-3d-printe...
Basically all of them will throw any other interest under the bus to support their own.
Laws that don’t meaningfully impact alleged 3d printing of guns because you can’t 3d print the metal parts of a gun that are needed to actually do gun things, on the vast majority of devices these laws would restrict.
It will look good for politicians who pass legislation to "protect" the vulnerable. Potentially improving the chances of another term due to the marketing benefits of pushing such a law through. I think you are mistaken believing that this may never happen.
The politics are probably different in other countries. We're still seeing Chat Control efforts in the EU.
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/keeping-new-yorkers-safe-go...
Now where I could agree with you is if you made the argument on a state-by-state level. Pretty sure what you said would hold up in Texas
> I think the crypto community took the wrong side in that fight. We should have lobbied to keep it counted as weaponry.
> Why?
> Once they get complacent, we break out the second amendment.
It seems that powers that be learned something from the world wide web deployment.
Apple is paying for their cloud AI, but they can make customers buy devices for local AI. There's all the PC and Android handset makers (ASUS, HP, countless Chinese brands, etc.) who only really stand to gain from selling hardware to customers. Not to mention that Nvidia/AMD/Intel would all happily take a cut on both halves of the ecosystem.
Blackmagic Design too.
They are all desperate for Windows to run well on a chip with unified VRAM.
Do your local filters run slow? Does your movie render have no sass? Then sign-up for AaaS!
But it must be an epic pain for them to maintain when they are really a software company, and AI tools really should be able to do most of their work locally. Affinity has some local model support for example.
I am sure they are going to have to maintain cloud support for those features for a long time, but it's all a much easier sell if you can also run it locally.
Trying to establish the right to run models locally while we still can makes more sense than waiting to see if they do try, then organizing too late.
Are you sure? There are already laws against what you can do at home with very basic (pun) fundamentals of reality like chemistry.
Someone simply searching for "How to assassinate Trump" could get arrested for a thought crime. Hell this comment alone likely set off a few flags.
Imagine someone running an AI at home and asking it for planning a hit on someone. Cue same media fearmongering wave as with 3D printed guns and woohoo now it's mandatory for operating systems to watch your screen and all your keystrokes.
Fuck I probably gave some of the control freaks in power some ideas there :(
One they _could_ be referring to is the California AI Transparency Act which isn't compatible with open source licensing, see https://github.blog/news-insights/policy-news-and-insights/g...
Nothing has ever been, directly or indirectly, deficit financed at this scale before. In notional or real terms, in history, by anyone.
Now maybe there's an argument that it's a good investment: we are going to beggar the Treasury to buy 2CTA on CoWoS out of Taipei and DCs the size of Manhattan. I personally think we could have done a little more engineering before deciding that the big blind was like, 5 trillion all counted, but it was going to be expensive no matter what.
What super weird is that we're running a project where the "penny" to the "dollar" is the Manhattan Project, and a couple of super weird dudes who do MDMA at Lighthaven now and again are like, in charge of it.
what does this mean?
Dunno.
>CoWoS
Chip on wafer on substrate
>DCs
Data centers
I find it unlikely that this is true.
The obvious candidate for things financed through staggeringly large deficits would be war.
But with $1.4T announced capex for the Frontier AI labs, we're not far from the 2nd (illegal) war in Irak: $1.8T of direct military spending.
With that said, I don't know how Frontier Ai companies will ever recover this capex with a glorious $50B of revenues. Add to that that a GPU's lifetime is only a few years and you may see it as a deadend.
NB: did you know Uber destroyed $27B of value since inception? But it still exists. So Frontier AI might just do the same.
```
Warning Suspected Phishing This website has been reported for potential phishing.
Phishing is when a site attempts to steal sensitive information by falsely presenting as a safe source.
Cloudflare Ray ID: <retracted_because_what_is_this> • Your IP: • Performance & security by Cloudflare
```
Who "reports" this? And why does cloudfare take them down? How does this even work?
```
This site can’t provide a secure connection righttointelligence.org sent an invalid response.
Try running Windows Network Diagnostics. ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR
```
i’d be curious to know more details as well. is this a targeted mass reporting or something?
Obviously money is not freely distributed, so how could we possibly make the case that power will be?
All that needs to happen is Xi Jinpeng feel that Chinese SOTA models would be better kept to benefit solely China, and just upon that single utterance, no more models will come out of China.
Once they dominate the market, they will export to keep it that way. The exported models will be a generation or two behind their SOTA. It will nevertheless surpass Mythos unless you believe we are already at the peak. And it might be "free" but it will obviously be backdoored the same way the United States government benefits from Microsoft's global dominance. The same way America hands out fighter jets just generation behind their own best to keep other governments part of the club and in line.
Unlike the United States where every four years we are at risk to some 180 on policy the Chinese have a clear thesis and a clear direction. How many presidents has Xi seen come and go? Do you get the sense he is getting more impressed? They really don't have to do anything but just keep doing what they are doing. Suddenly stopping their export engine is not in keeping with this strategy. That is "stable genius" behavior.
Xi did not interfere when Chinese labs released GPT-4, o1, o3, etc level models. why draw the line at current SOTA that will be old news in a year?
I never heard anyone contemplating "why people are so sure we'd get freely available GPT-4 level+ models".
Mythos is just another advancement in AI model capability. If we start pretending like it isn't, we are setting ourselves up for paying far more than is reasonable and accepting the frame that we should not in fact have free access to open models with the same capabilities.
This is just marketing.
I can't wait for some similar big steps in open weight models.
Which is bullshit, unless you’re an AIaaS company whose revenue is dependent on state-sanctioned market fixing and regulatory capture.
Look, when this shitty cycle ends, we’re likely to find ourselves back in the start of a new memory cycle of surplus and lower costs. We’re talking what very well may be the boom that shatters the 16GB “baseline” we’ve been stuck at for over a decade in consumer computing, and make larger RAM counts (64GB to 1TB+) valuable to consumers specifically for local AI workloads. Local AI isn’t just an enthusiast thing, it’s likely the future of consumer AI provided we don’t let companies and policymakers curtail its use via fearmongering.
Be proactive, and protect consumer right to compute and AI models. Enforce existing laws, don’t outlaw legitimate use just to prop up an unsustainable business model.
> Fraud, cybercrime, CSAM, harassment, nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, discrimination, and sabotage should stay illegal and be enforced seriously.
The "enforced seriously" part is how they will get you. Don't worry, there won't be a blanket ban on local models. Instead, any model that is "certified CSAM-free" or whatever will be perfectly legal. Meaning that it's impossible to prompt it into producing underage smut in any shape or form.
Of course, any model running locally can be easily jailbroken via prefills, and so in practice it will be a blanket ban. But good luck politically standing up against something that is explicitly worded as an anti-CSAM / anti-terrorist measure and nominally constrained to those areas.
And I already have the right to local intelligence, because my GPUs are my private property, and if someone freely releases a beerware model then I can freely download it.
What am I missing?
but I wouldn't advise it
Yes, illegal things are illegal. Legal things are not illegal. It's very simple. If a "local LLM" (good luck defining that in law) were made illegal, then a petition like this would make sense. Until then, this is pointless FUD over a hypothetical that I place roughly 0.00% odds of ever happening.
Local training? Is that feasible?
wdym by that
> for daily tasks
which are?
why would I ever want 80% of the results though?
What current local models work fine for is delegating clearly-described tasks in a code base the programmer actually understands. Qwen3.6 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash are both great little workhorses.
There's also GLM 5.2, which is kind of like "store brand Opus", and which might be considered a "near-frontier" model. I don't have as much experience with it.
also just code-that-is-not-as-shit in general
for clearly defined stuff smaller models are fine, but at that point I'd rather write the code myself
in any case, if there's a chance a cheaper model will fuck it up, is the price diff worth gambling with your time?
Where did you hear this? All the results I can find say the opposite that the US would buy anything.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-proposes-handing-tru...
[1] https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855671/-1/-1/0/art...
[2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500170/pdf/DCPD-...
I get it. These models can be powerful. But will they be useful is a different question.
i would argue that no one knows answer to that yet.
Personally, I am good with the current version of Opus. It is already so strong for my uses that I can't really tell much difference with Fable.
For me, current Opus represents the model strength that can be commoditized. I am not splitting the atom that I need something much smarter.
I have gone completely risk off in the market the last month because of this. Commoditized at the low end and regulation is not going to become less of a problem as the frontier models get stronger.
I suspect 10 years from now we will look back at trillionaire Elon as an obvious tell we are the peak.
[1] https://memeburn.com/amodei-says-open-source-ai-is-becoming-... [2 July 2026]
[2] https://fortune.com/2026/07/02/anthropic-fable-and-mythos-ar... [July 2, 2026]
[3] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/S72ZRBSNHZc [2 weeks ago] -- Dario: "Now what I do worry about with some of these laggard models is the risks of them, where we have Mythos-class cyber capabilities, 12 months from now we'll have much better cyber capabilities. But the Mythos-class cyber capabilities may just be available for anyone to download."
[3] - he does express worry over the risks of open models -- much as he has long expressed worry over his own models (and AI safety was the primary reason for Anthropic's founding) -- but he does not even imply that they should be banned, and he even explicitly says there is nothing that can be done to stop open models from being distributed.
For completeness's sake:
[1] The primary linked source seems to also be the 2023 testimony, albeit posted with a timestamp from this week.
[2] Does not seem to quote Dario, nor mention banning - I think you included this as an example of someone else who is explicitly worried about AI risks, including of models that can't be pulled back -- fair enough (although I can't see that they have any association with a frontier lab). If the argument is that many people have concerns about AI risks, including risks specific to open models, and who are not associated with a frontier lab, I agree with you.
I was hoping to read more about this, but they don't back up such a claim...
The big AI companies cannot leave money on the table. The local models will be restricted sooner or later as long as corruption is not investigated and prosecuted.
The petitions don't have any power. If you really want change you should start gofundme. Buy your MP or minister a yacht or hire their nephew.
Unfortunately you are unlikely going to outbid multi billion corporations.
Licensing models for any IP is real, but I don't see how they could restrict people running what they want on their devices. It is already well established that you have to pay for software unless it is free.
If this is about PC manufacturers making the NPU chip carry a subscription model, well the market will sort that out.
You cannot ban local AI without banning local software which is obviously impossible.
Possession of software, even software that can be used for illegal purpose such as RATs and other viruses isn't illegal.
The Chinese are the open ones, with free downloads, open weights, and loads of published research. The USA with OpenAI is some of the most closed shit out there.
Aside from that you're 100% correct.
I'm all for more OSS models by American companies, and I think they could do much more than they are. But the perception that China is the only game in town for OSS doesn't hold up against the basic facts on the ground.
And when even very intelligent, but excessively conceited, people hear the echo of their own reason9ing from conversational autocorrect and assume it is somehow akin to intelligent life, the normies will go with whatever the plutocrats push with their media outlets too absorbed in their own domain specific knowledge (and cowed into intellectual laziness by other media products they consume eagerly) to ever subject it to much thought that Claude might not be Skynet after all.
The twist is that AI is pushing all white collar jobs further into bureaucratic work. Nobody is losing their jobs and it's not quite a revolution, but despite all odds and headlines the younger generations are actually much better educated and positioned to do the right things as they take over.
An optimistic take is that since this is the middle class we're talking about, we get more productivity and more justice as a result. The only people upset about this are grifters and charlatans whose time is up.
Here’s a plot of a sci-fi thriller. What if, unbeknownst to most, when the vendors were claiming that there AI was too dangerous, they weren’t referring to an increment on what was already out there, but to something far different and more capable. Conscious even! What if that then came up with the financial scheme to end all schemes, knowing that human greed is eminently exploitable, and that the build out of all the global DCs was actually all about removing single points of failure for itself while secretly building out a robot army! We’ll be well on the way to capitalism-ing our own demise.
Maybe Steven Spielberg can make this his next project.
IDK, I don't live in the US, and I have no idea which "possible law" this website is referring to. In any case, it could be seen as a proactive effort to keep the gates open.
As a side note, I think this is a discussion every open-source supporter should have by actively considering the risks and what actions to take if such a hypothetical law were ever to pass.
No need for huge expensive purpose built tractors. Even if they’re slow you could have half a dozen running 24/7.
It could provide independence for anyone with a modicum of resources.
If generalist robotic models get good enough to accomplish many varied tasks effectively, training a separate comparable specialized system from scratch for every task would be highly cost-ineffective, even if, in theory, it could have slightly higher reliability.
We're going to (and are already on the way to) train deeply general models that can be told: "go tend that field."
And if that's the case, it no longer makes sense to build specialized, purpose-built tractors to house that level of autonomous capability. You instead put it in a humanoid frame (with a little extra sauce for locomotion of said humanoid), and get that to drive your existing tractor.
I'm thinking more of the small tasks that are often needed. Mending fences. Pulling weeds. Feeding chickens. Running off coyotes. Lots of things.
The greater question centres about who will tend the machines - 4,000 hectares of seeding requires a week and more of prep work on the air seeder, hoses, points, tines, etc.
Due to the scale of pre-training going on, it seems reasonable that a humanoid could also do a lot of the preliminary work you mentioned that currently is not (or rarely) automated.
On one hand I feel like I'm sure to catch some ridicule for saying any of this, on the other it seems like it is very obviously the direction we're headed.
The Rio Tinto plans for automated mining of the Resolution Copper deposit in the USofA don't revolve about "humanoid" figures sitting in seats made for humans.
Large acreage continuously producing near fully automated tomato greenhouses don't work with humanoid shaped automata - they have poles with cameras and shaking mechanisms for pollinating, etc.
It's a much simpler fighter jet that doesn't have to carry a human.
* https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/01/12/376781165...
It's sitting in your chair. Or is it?
In the worst case it communicates the magnitude of dismsissiveness while demonstrating your intention to claim agency.
That symbolism is akin to prayer.
I am not casting prayer in a negative light, I’m simply categorising your voting concept.
Visibly praying in public would be symbolic. Prayer is not symbolic; it's thought.
I'm talking about external signaling.
Misleading title.
The article is about local "AI".
I've designed the role-model protocol for this, allowing routing between any model, however to function optimally it needs consumer applications to use the protocol when sending requests: https://role-model.dev/concepts/how-role-model-works