> I don't trust it with my data, and won't rely on such tools until I can self-host them, and they can be entirely offline.
Interestingly, my point to The Verge was exactly that. https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1633456289639542789
Me:
> So, imagine it. You'll have a ChatGPT on your laptop -- your very own, that you can use for whatever purposes you want. Personally, I'll be hooking it up to read my emails and let me know if anything comes in that I need to pay attention to, or hook it up to the phone so that it can schedule doctor's appointments for me, or deal with AT&T billing department, or a million other things. The tech exists right now, and I'd be shocked if no one turns it into a startup idea over the next few years. (There's already a service called GhostWrite, where you can let GPT write your emails on your behalf. So having one talk on the phone on your behalf isn't far behind.)
The article:
> Presser imagines future versions of LLaMA could be hosted on your computer and trained on your emails; able to answer questions about your work schedules, past ideas, to-do lists, and more. This is functionality that startups and tech companies are developing, but for many AI researchers, the idea of local control is far more attractive. (For typical users, tradeoffs in cost and privacy for ease of use will likely swing things the other way.)
Notice how they turned the point around from "you can host it yourself" to "but typical users probably won't want that," like this is some esoteric concern that only three people have.
So like, it's not just you. If you feel like you're "in the minority" just because you want to run these models yourself, know that even as an AI researcher I, too, feel like an outsider. We're in this together.
And I have no idea why things are like this. But I just wanted to at least reassure you that the frustrations exist at the researcher level too.