Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protect your right to run local AI

righttointelligence.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 222 posts

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#61

Post by defrost »

wolttam wrote: post #47
stonogo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you imagine the farming robots will look like? I'm betting they look like expensive purpose built tractors.

We're not going to go down the path of training a bunch of highly specialized models for tasks like "this tractor should tend this field". We're going to (and are already on the way to) train deeply general models that can be told: "go tend that field." And if that's the case, it no longer makes sense to build specialized, purpose-built tractors to house that level of autonomous capability. You instead put it in a hu…

And yet actual farmers veer toward Ag-bots - autonomous "tractors" that have no human driver and pull the same farming trailer that already exist - ploughs, seeding bars, spray bars, etc.

The greater question centres about who will tend the machines - 4,000 hectares of seeding requires a week and more of prep work on the air seeder, hoses, points, tines, etc.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#62

Post by slopinthebag »

stego-tech wrote: post #45

This is one of those things we should absolutely push proactively rather than reactively, if only because I’ve had several “chats” with AI models both local and AIaaS, and all repeat the same talking point that AIaaS is the only sensible, safe, and secure choice. Which is bullshit, unless you’re an AIaaS company whose revenue is dependent on state-sanctioned market fixing and regulatory capture. Look, when this shitt…

Amen. Local AI is the positive future, and SaaS AI is the hellscape. There is a very clear good vs evil boundary here, and every single person involved knows exactly where the boundary is. Those who pretend not to are simply just motivated by things other than the moral good.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#63

Post by 317070 »

throw93930 wrote: post #60
Forgeties79 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU did not ban 8K TV’s, this is a very misleading spin. They put energy consumption restrictions some TV’s violated years ago. Manufacturers have already responded with more efficient TV’s, which actually means the restriction is working as intended towards a good outcome IMO. You can absolutely buy 8K TV’s in Europe. No EU country has banned air conditioning either. Where are you getting this information?

[flagged]

The UK did not ban AC. Don't read the Telegraph, and if you do, don't trust it.

Source: I live there

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#64

Post by dr_kiszonka »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #54
landdate wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are going to beggar the Treasury to buy 2CTA on CoWoS out of Taipei and DCs the size of Manhattan what does this mean?

>2CTA Dunno. >CoWoS Chip on wafer on substrate >DCs Data centers

Cooperative Thread Array

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#65

Post by voidUpdate »

elcritch wrote: post #23
DoctorOetker wrote: post #8

"12 acres and an LLM"

Mock it we might now, but 12 acres and (not too distant future) open weights AI models capable of driving open source robots for farm labor would be huge. No need for huge expensive purpose built tractors. Even if they’re slow you could have half a dozen running 24/7. It could provide independence for anyone with a modicum of resources.

I'd probably want something other than an LLM running farming machines. I'd rather a purpose build machine learning system that is actually designed to run them, not just a tractor that goes "you're absolutely right! I ignored all the rules you set for me and harvested the wheat 2 months early. It's not just stupid, it's irresponsible"

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#67

Post by int_19h »

ekidd wrote: post #50
julianlam wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you need a frontier model for, really.

Frontier models like Fable are mostly useful if you want to paste in one or two prompts, and receive a subtly broken application that looks impressive. That is very hard to do with local models today. What current local models work fine for is delegating clearly-described tasks in a code base the programmer actually understands. Qwen3.6 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash are both great little workhorses. There's also GLM 5.2,…

FWIW Fable is insanely expensive for the task you just described, so much so that I don't think it's practical for that. Its practical use is as a dev lead / architect / project manager model, doing planning and writing detailed feature specs and code reviews while Opus/Codex/Gemini does the actual coding.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#68

Post by int_19h »

wolttam wrote: post #47
stonogo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you imagine the farming robots will look like? I'm betting they look like expensive purpose built tractors.

We're not going to go down the path of training a bunch of highly specialized models for tasks like "this tractor should tend this field". We're going to (and are already on the way to) train deeply general models that can be told: "go tend that field." And if that's the case, it no longer makes sense to build specialized, purpose-built tractors to house that level of autonomous capability. You instead put it in a hu…

It's not an either-or. Generalist models can drive training of specialized models just fine. And while I haven't seen a generalist model decide by itself to train a specialized model to complete some large task, this seems like a natural extension of what they already do wrt writing their own tooling as needed.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#69

Post by int_19h »

snootypoot wrote: post #37
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's gpt-oss from OpenAI, gemma from Google, phi from Microsoft, granite from IBM, nemotron from NVIDIA, Ornith from DeepReinforce, Olmo from the Allen Institute. Aside from that you're 100% correct.

compared to the chinese models those are all garbage. its almost as if there is a minimum effort being made just to later say "see, we werent always for the closed models, its just that the open stuff was so far behind". or maybe they think that an environment full of terrible models will push everyone harder into the closed stuff.

Gemma is hardly garbage, even compared to the most recent Qwen of the same size.
Post reply on HN