On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 at 14:54, Christian Kastner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2026-07-30 13:33, Aigars Mahinovs wrote:
> > But what I wanted to pick up was the analogy with the free software
> > movement. Free software did *not* succeed by absolutely rejecting all
> > commercial software and non-free hardware from the onset.
>
> Huh -- until you mentioned this, it never even occurred to me that
> someone, especially opponents to LLM use, might see this temporary
> embrace of hosted LLMs as anything other than a phase.
Hosted vs self-hosted vs local and proprietary vs open weights vs free are
two separate dimensions.
Unless you have a prohibitively expensive rig at home, the dataserver
provider will always be able to provide you with a more powerful platform
for self-hosting and a commercial service provider will be able to use even
more powerful hardware.It's just a question of capital cost vs utilization
percentage. I expect that local usage can get to "good enough" stage and
then lower the cost of reaching that stage, but self-hosted and fully
hosted solutions will alway be able to provide more capability.
On the freeness scale we might be able to shift towards the more free end
of the scale, especially once the thorny copyright questions are resolved.
One way or another. If copyrights survive training then non-free models
become basically impossible. If copyright does not survive training or if
training is fair use then free models do not need to constrain themselves
to non-copyleft materials only and can be much better trained. Either way
we get better free models.
--
Best regards,
Aigars Mahinovs
