You were answering the question "What security issues come from self-hosting?" The security issue you named has nothing to do with self-hosting. What, then, was your point?
We seem to be reading the same comment(s) differently.
The context (verbatim):
> Correct. We need open weights, open code and open data. If nobody else can reproduce what someone did there will always be security questions. Even if we can reproduce it there could still be security concerns but it's more realistic to investigate yourself.
In short, it's an appeal to full openness and reproducibility on the basis of security; open weights alone notably do not provide that same confidence. They're better in some respects, not really in others.
Then comes the question (also verbatim):
> Exactly what are the possible 'security issues' of self hosting an open weights model?
Implying then that as long as you do have the weights and just self host it, the asker cannot imagine what could possibly go wrong. What is the gap, if any?
And so I explained. That was my point. Open weights do not give you full reproducibility, and so that on its own falls short of what the parent comment is making an appeal to. That there does remain a security concern, shared by remote and closed models, that does not improve just by having the weights, but would if you did have full reproducibility. Explaining that gap was my point, as that is what I understood as being asked there. It's the only thing I can reasonably imagine being asked, in fact.
This is a materially different question to what you apparently extracted (again, verbatim):
> What security issues come from self-hosting?
Implying that by self-hosting models, something bad might specifically happen.
I do not think this, do not think I suggested this, do not think the original question suggested this, and generally do not think this is indeed any sensible, in or outside the context. Certainly not beyond something common sense, like vLLM being compromised or whatever.
You seem to agree. But then how did we get here, clearly talking past each other?
You were answering the question "What security issues come from self-hosting?" The security issue you named has nothing to do with self-hosting. What, then, was your point?
We seem to be reading the same comment(s) differently.
The context (verbatim):
> Correct. We need open weights, open code and open data. If nobody else can reproduce what someone did there will always be security questions. Even if we can reproduce it there could still be security concerns but it's more realistic to investigate yourself.
In short, it's an appeal to full openness and reproducibility on the basis of security; open weights alone notably do not provide that same confidence. They're better in some respects, not really in others.
Then comes the question (also verbatim):
> Exactly what are the possible 'security issues' of self hosting an open weights model?
Implying then that as long as you do have the weights and just self host it, the asker cannot imagine what could possibly go wrong. What is the gap, if any?
And so I explained. That was my point. Open weights do not give you full reproducibility, and so that on its own falls short of what the parent comment is making an appeal to. That there does remain a security concern, shared by remote and closed models, that does not improve just by having the weights, but would if you did have full reproducibility. Explaining that gap was my point, as that is what I understood as being asked there. It's the only thing I can reasonably imagine being asked, in fact.
This is a materially different question to what you apparently extracted (again, verbatim):
> What security issues come from self-hosting?
Implying that by self-hosting models, something bad might specifically happen.
I do not think this, do not think I suggested this, do not think the original question suggested this, and generally do not think this is indeed any sensible, in or outside the context. Certainly not beyond something common sense, like vLLM being compromised or whatever.
You seem to agree. But then how did we get here, clearly talking past each other?