Comment by badsectoracula
25 days ago
> But why? Why not simply do/use whatever is most cost-effective?
Because cost-effectiveness is a short term concern compared to...
> what is the benefit of control?
...the independence that being in control provides you in the long term. As for why to be independent, i hope it should be self-evident that being able to do what you want and work on without having to rely on 3rd parties for a core component of that work is a good thing.
And TBH i'm not sure why being fast at the cost of everything else (especially of independence and control) is even considered a good thing in the first place.
> As for why to be independent, i hope it should be self-evident that being able to do what you want
To be honest, not really.
I have a million limitations in my life. Trying to achieve some kind of "independence" is not something I understand. I prefer to accept a kind of interdependence, to be part of an ecosystem. To work together, in sync, for mutual benefit.
I rely on third parties for my food, my housing, my health, my education, my technology, all of it. Using an LLM hosted elsewhere feels no different from using electricity generated elsewhere, or food grown elsewhere, or a computer manufactured elsewhere. So why the difference for you?
> I have a million limitations in my life.
Same but trying to add more limitations (in my view a reliance on a 3rd party to do what i want is a limitation) is not something i like to add without having an incredibly good reason without alternative options.
> So why the difference for you?
In general because each dependence comes with requirements and expectations (many of which i may not even know ahead of time) from my side. The simplest and most straightforward one when it comes to cloud LLMs would be the requirement to have internet connection (which i may or may not have, for a variety of reasons) and of course money to pay for it - and, at least with the way LLMs are currently monetized, that money would depend on how much i need it - and i may either not have that money or not want or even be able to spend it (again for whatever reasons). Even if someone else would pay (e.g. a workplace) this can have indirect effects, like my employer using the LLM use (either via how much i'd cost them for its use or how much i'm using it by counting tokens - the latter of which is something many people have mentioned is already being done, though for now it is to maximize LLM use as CEOs are still in their FOMO phase), which in turn have negative consequences for me.
Just like Microsoft nowadays has almost zero incentive to provide a good quality OS despite Linux existing, since they've captured an overwhelming majority of the desktop space, there is no guarantee that once some LLM provider captures the overwhelming majority of a market wont jack up prices and let quality languish even if there are theoretically alternatives - especially if said provider has built a dependency moat around it with various tools that only work with their LLMs (some LLM providers make their own tools and this isn't out of the good of their hearts).
But there is more to it than just the obvious stuff above. Being in control means nobody will force you do or not do something you dislike - even if you end up doing the same thing down the road, it'd be your decision, not someone else's forced on you.
One example i'm certain many people would have encountered is software updates making the experience of existing users worse. With something cloud-based there isn't much you can do - what if i liked the original GMail, YouTube or even Facebook interfaces more than their current incarnations? There is nothing i can do about it, i just have to accept that i have no control over them. The best i can do is hope that the developers, like in Reddit's case for example, would leave the old UI around and not mess with it much - but even then, i'm at the mercy of those developers, not in control myself. And while with something like GMail i could at least use a desktop application (and hope GMail doesn't remove the feature that make that possible), the core features of YouTube, Facebook and Reddit are mainly their userbases, not their UIs - i do not visit Facebook because i like how it works or behaves, i visit it because it is a point of contact with some family members and acquaintances. Similarly, i do not visit Reddit because i like its UX, i visit it because of the stuff people post and comment there.
Another example, more relevant to LLMs, would be when OpenAI upgraded ChatGPT from 3.5 to 4 or something like that (i do not use ChatGPT so i do not know) and people really disliked the change of tone their chatbots had. Say whatever you want about if that was good or not (though it'd be beside the point i'm trying to make), but ultimately, it was a clear example of someone in power (OpenAI) making changes that some of their users greatly disliked but had zero control or power to do anything about it. AFAIK a similar (though less publicized) issue was when Anthropic changed Claude 3 to Claude 4 but AFAIK Claude 3 still remains available - but that is, like with Reddit's case, because of Anthropic's "benevolence" (as long as it is financially viable for them, of course).
Willingly exposing myself to more dependencies, when my experience so far has shown that they come with long term consequences that are often not aligned with my desires isn't something i like doing. As you implied, there are already aspects of life where we do not have much control, but to me the existence of those acts more of an incentive to avoid losing further control where i can than to give up on it entirely.
On the topic of LLMs, from a personal perspective at least, if local LLMs end up being completely inadequate and making software becomes a matter of developers becoming little more than "remote LLM operators" then i'll just treat being a "remote LLM operator" the same way as being a secretary or accountant: something that i'm not interested in, even if their work often involves using computers.
Very interesting, thanks that helps me understand.
It seems like you have what might be called an extreme sense of loss aversion, and so the more control and independence you have, the more you can prevent loss.
In contrast, I don't really have that. Sure I get annoyed when a software interface changes, but at the same time I see that the updates overall have also given me 10 other features I really appreciate, and so I see it as a net win. On the whole, I find that being embedded in a web of up-to-date dependencies has always been a large net positive on the whole. There are losses, but they are far outweighted by the wins, so whenever a loss bugs me I just remind myself of all the new helpful stuff. Like, Spotify's changes to UX drive me nuts sometimes. But they recently launched prompted playlists that have been a game changer for me. They added transitions between songs which is awesome. I'm using them to listen to audiobooks my library doesn't have. So I can put up with the UX.
But if you experiences losses psychologically as 10x the size of wins of the same "objective" size, then your calculus could be different. Pretty much everybody has loss aversion to some extent, it's considered a standard human trait -- I have to remind myself to put things into perspective myself sometimes -- but it sounds like you have a much stronger sense of it, so the control that greater independence gives you is much more valuable to you than it is to someone like me.
So that's why, when you say, "i hope it should be self-evident" -- it's not self-evident to someone like me at all, but I can see why it seems self-evident to you.