upvote

points

by krapp4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ricardo814 hours ago|
next
[-]
The point being that's the solution. I didn't say it is decentralised.
reply
upvoteby krapp4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
How is it possible to decentralize a technology that needs data centers the size of Manhattan? It doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.

A better solution would be to just not have AI at all, outside of the few research roles where LLMs actually make sense.

reply
upvoteby ricardo814 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Because it has extremely plausible uses beyond the example you gave.

More to the point it's trained on copyrighted material, so why entertain any use at all on that front if anything.

If it's trained on the world's information, give the world the model.

It doesn't need a tech company to pilfer everything and charge X if we're going to ignore the IP.

reply
upvoteby mike_hearn4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Not really. Search engines are a tech so centralized only two of them exist in the west, Google and Bing. There are zero open source search engines of any usable quality. Whereas there are lots of models out there, some free to download.
reply
upvoteby krapp3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"only two search engines exist in the west" and "only two search engines in the west are of usable quality to me" are contradictory statements.

The models free to download aren't the models used by OpenAI, Anthropic and Google. You aren't going to get all of OpenAI downloaded to your desktop and running fully on just your hardware.

And in each case (search and AI) the potential to decentralize and maintain "usable quality" is limited by these technologies requiring physical infrastructure at a scale that isn't available to the home consumer.

reply