The FSF also did not think about another freedom that is included when work becomes cheaper than free:
The freedom to not pay for your software or for support.
Luckily, the free market is still functioning, and Chinese models will continue to exist, at least for a while, so we can continue to enjoy competitive rates.
But, as you saw with the crash of the AI stocks, a democrat run administration has the best chance of making those prices a reality, through regulation (for better or worse).
Will this stop operating if you unsubscribe from claude?
Will add-on work from chatgpt or Kimi or Qwen require starting from scratch?
Obviously, the answer is 'no'. So regardless of the "do you understand the code" purity test, this is still a net good, both for this customer, and others who can make use of this work.
That said, > I know people get a bit salty about outsiders coming in and showing stuff they 'built', and it does feel a bit like they shouldn't get the praise for something they basically spent a few evenings prompting into existence
Let's not jump to conclusion about someone's motivation.
This is why I started saying I've directed a thing instead of saying I built it.
Why aren't they forming their own planetoid?
Codex did it and flashed it in 1 minute.
I'm all for AI safety, but this sounds more like corpo preference safety to me.
From the Jensen thread:
> I hope this won't change NVIDIA's refusal to block inference for unsigned and registered open-models in the firmware of modern GPUs. Anthropic and others are pushing hard on this. First the hardware export ban, eventually the software one via hardware-enforced execution controls like IETF hinted at
DRM for the agentic coding age
I presume it's some internal steering neither it nor I are privy to, but the "whatever fuck it I'm not listening" was kinda hilarious at the time.
The Computer is your friend.
When I'm doing stuff like this, I always have this thought in the back of my head like "man, this is awesome- I bet they try to stop people from doing stuff like this soon". Like there'll be an in-built "do not assist in reverse engineering or circumventing subscription-based services" instruction.
I'm sure if the field hadn't been moving so fast they would have tried, but it's kind of already decided unless they take away general computation.
You don’t have to ban things. You just have to harder to get them than the alternatives.
Right now we benefit from a massive number of people participating as creators and users. What happens when that slows to a trickle?
Let’s start with the first obvious one: what happens when uncensored/abliterated models are pulled from HF? How many people will just shrug and say “well I guess I don’t use those anymore”? Because previously it was simply download LM studio, search, click on the model you want. The end. Suddenly it is much more difficult
We know with populations of a certain size, any barrier is going to cause people to drop off. We see it over and over again. Why is this going to be any different? The more technical it feels, the more impenetrable it feels, so people will simply turn to ChatGPT or anthropic or whoever and pay them a subscription. Is that what we want? Like what are you even arguing with me about?
> We know with populations of a certain size, any barrier is going to cause people to drop off
but the population size of people who will self host is not large.
> The more technical it feels, the more impenetrable it feels
you have to be inherently technical to even consider the option to run locally no matter how easy. what would a non technical person even use a local LLM for, that they wouldn't want to do with CGPT or ANT?
also, even considering reverse engineering any software at all requires technical knowledge. 99% of lay people don't even know it's an option let alone start vibe coding a RE on a local LLM
A lot of people also work on projects because they want people to use it. If the number of people utilizing different peoples takes on models drops, than people are going to lose interest in making them for other people. We all like to point to the altruism of the open source world, but nobody likes to release something only for no people to use it. That’s a very natural feeling that leads to people not releasing things because they’re too niche and such.
Anyway I’m just moving on. I don’t understand how I’m having to defend “increased barriers to entry dissuades people from participation and creation.” Some of y’all don’t think it’s a big deal or it’s somehow not applicable, but I can’t say I agree
It’s not going to stop with hugging face just like ID requirements aren’t stopping at pornography. It is much harder to regain these things once they are lost.
Barriers to entry are a thing. Look at Linux or general open source adoption. Convenience is important.
Also, for each device/group of devices, this only has to be done by a single determined person. It's not something that _everyone_ has to be able to do to have a transformative effect.
They won't need to do that. All they'll need to do is use one of the sites/services set up by folks like you and me, who can set up an LM studio.
I just feel like some of you are inadvertently advocating for “only the most determined should be allowed to participate.”
They already are.
I've also recently seen here on HN an initiative to torrent "rare" models, but I can't manage to find it back.
Prepare.
A lot of my clients have a need for partly embedded software, and partly applications. That's always been more remunerative than strictly app level software. The change I have observed since last year is that the app part can get a lot more ambitious and user-friendly on the kind of budget hardware makers allocate for that.
Claude now refuses to reverse engineer games to fix compatibility issues on Linux/Proton, particularly in relation to anti-cheat software. Codex still works, and while Claude is still useful for other types of work, I am considering a migration to GLM and DeepSeek.
Of course, I had to assuage the clankers fears by setting up a fake scenario before sending the one-shot, but I assume everyone does that nowadays.
Local and open source models are more important than ever, or those who control the hardware will dictate what AI can or cannot be used for.
the concept of safety can't really exist independently of who gets to decide what is and isn't safe
But enjoy it while you can, because for all their singing the praises of how it empowers people now, as soon as it actually, you know, empowers the people, the establishment will start shutting it down on one side while enshittification starts eating it from the other.
Both of those trends have already started, they're just being outrun by the pace of progress and the need for revenue. But both of those things will eventually pass.
End of the day, they get to choose how their model is used, and we can vote with our feet.
But not knowing in the moment that you’re doing anything “wrong”, is terrible to then get warned over- now you have to second guess as presumably warnings add up to getting cut off. The refusals suck, but at least they’re at the right point in the process.
But I don't see anything moving yet.
So even though you are instructing it to do something, Anthropic knows it points to them.
This is a side effect of corporations owning the models closed source. It's all well and good, they deserve to make money with their products. But open weight models and open source harnesses are the only way forward.
We had a short argument about how rich I though it was that AI was giving me grief about scraping data off the internet. Finally I told it I owned a physical copy of the book (which I do) and it happy relented and assembled the pdf for me.
My experience has been that arguing with a model about its own guardrails is unnecessary hassle.
I find it much easier to rewind the poisoned session to a point where the refusal hasn't occurred (or start a new session), then repeat your request with your rebuttal already baked in.
Recently both Claude and ChatGPT refused to help me download a "backup" of an old movie you couldn't get elsewhere.
Chinese models had no qualms.
^satire
Thinking of it, I strongly self-censor when interacting with hosted AI. Knowing that the conversations are all going god-knows-where and likely kept for eternity as training data or worse, I keep out certain data (PII, business details), and probably also subconsciously do things differently.
That's why I also have a local model for dictation - wouldn't want all that I say go to the cloud.
I can't use a tool that silently drops down to a lower intelligence, or refuses, or doesn't think I should be doing something. I would much rather lose 5% of the benchmaxxed scores and actually be able to do something reasonable.
Don't even get me started on the fact Claude still has 5 hour limits, what a way to kill any flow.
This 'safeguard' was most likely implemented immediately after the reverse engineer anything news a month back.
I would consider the defining line between reverse engineering a product and a meaningful breach of security. For example: finding a remote vulnerability, bad. Finding a vulnerability that requires physical access, perfectly fine. While you can do harm with the latter, it is much more probable the person is the owner of the device. Finding a vulnerability in an embroidery machine, fine. Finding a vulnerability in a phone, bad. In the former case, it is highly unlikely to contain personal data. In the latter case, it is highly likely to contain personal data.
I realize not everyone is going to agree with this, unfortunately security is a very real concern these days and people don't appear to be willing or able to say how their data is collected and stored.
Being completely right doesn't feel as good as I thought, but it's still pretty good.
LLMs are realizing the potential of the computer revolution.
Those heady dreams of Xanadu, Xerox PARC, Douglas Engelbart, and Bret Victor today? They're finally possible.
People all have access to a ton of computer hardware which is capable of remarkable things.
Historically they have been restricted in what problems they can actually bring that hardware to bear on by the availability of software tailored to their specific need.
LLMs are capable of unleashing the power of your computer hardware to do all sorts of things you never would have been able to consider before.
That’s the magic; the barrier is down.
You can study for a lifetime to become Yen Sid and teach the broom to fetch water for you without lifting a finger, or you can just fetch the dang water yourself in 10 minutes.
Or alternatively... why wouldn't the device OEM add support for <new feature> on <ancient garbage> if it's just a few tokens away.
>Even though I've been a developer for 30+ years (and a nerd for longer), I've never felt so motivated by the potential of a technology to make an individual's life richer. Thanks for sharing it.
Working in industry killed my desire to do any sort of computer stuff on the side. With AI handling the grunt work of setting up tooling and writing the bulk of the code I've started doing stuff again.
Because of planned obselence?
20$ Claude making some app that a skilled engineer could make in a few weekends doesn’t change the face of earth. Actually if Claude made the world’s greatest embroidery software that no human could ever make, it still doesn’t matter because frankly most software does not matter much. Your average house has more meaning and longevity than a piece of software.
With many fundamental real problems in the world - resource shortage, pollution, wealth inequality, disease. Watching a circle jerk about AI "fixing" an artificially created non-problem is just bizarre and a waste of resources.
Hobbyist can use LLM to RE, Manufactures can use LLM to harden their devices.
I won't be surprised if the last step in FW release pipeline is "Letting LLM to RE your FW in 48 hours, pass when agent fail to RE".
It will be cat chasing mouse game, the winner is the one with bigger gun.
I'm speculating here but I also love how a new tool, despite it's obvious limitations and side effects, can open up a whole workflow and liberate device. Yet... most projects like this I have seen are not as novel as they seem. They mostly seem to democratize or popularize hard work done elsewhere.
Regardless, the project looks insanely cool. I had no idea that you can buy a stitching machine that you can program. It sounds a bit like a CNC machine for cloth! I guess this is how a lot of cool embroided clothes are made that you see on Etsy.
Your app represents a future that I, an old, actually love. When I see projects like this, I don't think about ongoing support or if the project will be abandoned. I think, "Woah, I hadn't thought of that. Now I'm going to try it. Because why wouldn't I try to get all the value I can out of my $20/month Claude subscription?"
Even though I've been a developer for 30+ years (and a nerd for longer), I've never felt so motivated by the potential of a technology to make an individual's life richer. Thanks for sharing it.
And if you wrote it by hand, my hat's off to you for sharing that, too.