In my opinion they are not just as bad. I’ve found small local models do a very good job of solving various small problems, while using minimal energy. At worst they’re just regular bad. If you think mass data collection without consent to do stuff is a problem then its time to stop using just about any internet product with recommendations like YouTube or search engines as they all track data and scrape websites. There’s always a line and I feel the ongoing bad actors that are AI companies that have growth at any cost and already made local models are wildly different in the evil scale.
Then for you it’s okay the use of models trained with stolen data and, more importantly, works stolen from real artists, scientists, philosophers, etc., just because “iT’s SeLf HoStEd”?
All of us are trained on stolen data too. Unless you invented your own language and came up with every idea you have from scratch, then we’re all running on borrowed information. It’s our shared inheritance as humanity.
That’s why open-weight local models are the only way LLMs should be done. The data belongs to us, humanity. We made the data that they scraped, over thousands of years, and we’re still doing it to this day every time we post a comment on a public forum.
It shouldn’t be kept locked up in a vault where some oligarch can control its distribution and divvy it out for profit. It should be held in a public repo where anyone can download it, run it, tweak it, like any other open-source software. It belongs in the public domain.
Diffusion generation is different of course because the data is more complex, and stylistic details are often directly spoofed from the originals. It’s taking magazine-cuttings and calling them original work. AI slop isn’t art.
Language generation on the other hand is just… how humans have been speaking and sharing ideas since we began verbally communicating.
I like to think of it like solar panels. Sure at first it takes a lot to make, but over time it evens out. I was pretty clear local AI is still morally grey at best, but its a real solution to some problems, an I would argue its better to have local control and use small energy efficient models to do assisting tasks than let the open AI’s of the world decide for us.
In my opinion they are not just as bad. I’ve found small local models do a very good job of solving various small problems, while using minimal energy. At worst they’re just regular bad. If you think mass data collection without consent to do stuff is a problem then its time to stop using just about any internet product with recommendations like YouTube or search engines as they all track data and scrape websites. There’s always a line and I feel the ongoing bad actors that are AI companies that have growth at any cost and already made local models are wildly different in the evil scale.
Then for you it’s okay the use of models trained with stolen data and, more importantly, works stolen from real artists, scientists, philosophers, etc., just because “iT’s SeLf HoStEd”?
All of us are trained on stolen data too. Unless you invented your own language and came up with every idea you have from scratch, then we’re all running on borrowed information. It’s our shared inheritance as humanity.
That’s why open-weight local models are the only way LLMs should be done. The data belongs to us, humanity. We made the data that they scraped, over thousands of years, and we’re still doing it to this day every time we post a comment on a public forum.
It shouldn’t be kept locked up in a vault where some oligarch can control its distribution and divvy it out for profit. It should be held in a public repo where anyone can download it, run it, tweak it, like any other open-source software. It belongs in the public domain.
Diffusion generation is different of course because the data is more complex, and stylistic details are often directly spoofed from the originals. It’s taking magazine-cuttings and calling them original work. AI slop isn’t art.
Language generation on the other hand is just… how humans have been speaking and sharing ideas since we began verbally communicating.
Agree. Art is arguably only valuable because of the skill and effort used. AI art is a solution trying to make a problem for itself (cost cutting).
While using minimal energy to run, but not minimal energy to make.
I like to think of it like solar panels. Sure at first it takes a lot to make, but over time it evens out. I was pretty clear local AI is still morally grey at best, but its a real solution to some problems, an I would argue its better to have local control and use small energy efficient models to do assisting tasks than let the open AI’s of the world decide for us.