I usually don’t even understand the lingo they use. “Open-weighted” is the most recent one, then it usually goes down to specific “models” that everybody is supposed to know about.

These are my thoughts (I will stick to the vague “it” for now, but of course therein lies another question: “and how does all this apply to various specialised AIs”):

  • Is it really feasible to run it 100% locally? I know there’s plenty of people with very powerful rigs indeed, but still. Or are 99% of these people really saying “it would, in theory, be possible to run that locally, therefore your concerns are invalid”?
  • If yes to the previous: the software doesn’t come from nowhere and ultimately still relies on gas-turbine-powered datacenters and stolen IP and stolen personal data, no?

If what I wrote above is true, what exactly are people arguing when they say it’s still possible to use LLMs ethically or true to FOSS philosophy, because … ???

edit

Thanks to all who answered.

I guess it’s my fault for asking several questions in one, but this thread has attracted exactly the type of people I’m writing about; several even used the term “open-weighted models” without explaining it.

Asking to get arguments explained, I got more arguments instead.

  • Balinares@pawb.social
    1·
    1 day ago

    You run a program like llama.cpp that can use the weights to run the model, which you can then use for whatever you’d use a model for: figuring out tech stuff, coding, etc. It’s a bit involved, but there are tools that make it easy to get started. LM Studio for instance.

    In some cases, the lab that created the model publishes the dataset that it was trained on, and those are usually made of publicly available data. In most cases, though, the labs don’t give details, but the answer likely involves siphoning every web page they could find.