The article is all over the place and fails to convey author's point. I think he's just confused about what "LLM" (as opposed to "AI", what???), "deterministic", and "probabilistic" mean, let alone nuances of any of these.
Is about time we stop being dependent on super powerful that only exist on the walled gardens of some company that only have interest to maximize their profits and get an IPO.
Local-based and edge LLMs have to become the new norm. And it's about time that people start using the power for their benefit instead of benefitting a tech behemoth.
It's very hard for me to understand the frame a mind of the author of an article like this. I can't understand people seeing Anthropic's revenue go from $9B to $30B from January to April and seeing GPT 5.6(?) solve a longstanding open math problem and thinking that we've hit the top. I don't think superhuman intelligence that obsoletes humans is imminent, but it's clear that each model from OpenAI/Google/Anthropic is more useful than the last. They literally can't find enough GPUs to serve their customers; that's why the prices are so high. Apple, mentioned in the article, is now using cloud LLMs based on Gemini.
Local LLMs are awesome. Hopefully the way things go, in a few years everyone will have a local LLM that works for them, rather the bigcorp that made it. But it feels like cope to assert that cloud LLMs are dead.
Right now, the cloud-LLMs have big and IMO growing advantages. Cloud-LLMs are better at utilizing GPUs, economies of scale drive their serving cost down, they have the advantage in ability to monetize (like SaaS has the advantage over desktop apps), and they'll always have the most capable models. The question is whether the advantages of local LLMs in terms of personalization and data soveignity is worth it to consumers. And we saw what choice consumers made last time around, choosing centralized SaaS companies rather than a more distributed web.
> Apple announced...; it is a signal of what the AI world looks like today, and where it is going.
Interesting how apple, the company without any stack in ai/llm get to decide where things are going.
LLM is useful only when it's run on a data center consuming all water in a drought hit area and constantly buzzing residents near it, anything short of that is meh. Similar to blood diamond vs synthetic one
The article is all over the place and fails to convey author's point. I think he's just confused about what "LLM" (as opposed to "AI", what???), "deterministic", and "probabilistic" mean, let alone nuances of any of these.
Is about time we stop being dependent on super powerful that only exist on the walled gardens of some company that only have interest to maximize their profits and get an IPO. Local-based and edge LLMs have to become the new norm. And it's about time that people start using the power for their benefit instead of benefitting a tech behemoth.
It's very hard for me to understand the frame a mind of the author of an article like this. I can't understand people seeing Anthropic's revenue go from $9B to $30B from January to April and seeing GPT 5.6(?) solve a longstanding open math problem and thinking that we've hit the top. I don't think superhuman intelligence that obsoletes humans is imminent, but it's clear that each model from OpenAI/Google/Anthropic is more useful than the last. They literally can't find enough GPUs to serve their customers; that's why the prices are so high. Apple, mentioned in the article, is now using cloud LLMs based on Gemini.
Local LLMs are awesome. Hopefully the way things go, in a few years everyone will have a local LLM that works for them, rather the bigcorp that made it. But it feels like cope to assert that cloud LLMs are dead.
Right now, the cloud-LLMs have big and IMO growing advantages. Cloud-LLMs are better at utilizing GPUs, economies of scale drive their serving cost down, they have the advantage in ability to monetize (like SaaS has the advantage over desktop apps), and they'll always have the most capable models. The question is whether the advantages of local LLMs in terms of personalization and data soveignity is worth it to consumers. And we saw what choice consumers made last time around, choosing centralized SaaS companies rather than a more distributed web.
> Apple announced...; it is a signal of what the AI world looks like today, and where it is going.
Interesting how apple, the company without any stack in ai/llm get to decide where things are going.
LLM is useful only when it's run on a data center consuming all water in a drought hit area and constantly buzzing residents near it, anything short of that is meh. Similar to blood diamond vs synthetic one
they probably have the most captive audience that is used to justify valuations. stupid consumers who over pay for conspicuous consumption.
Forced to by a walled garden called the App Store. The Hotel California of software.
So what is next if the LLM gold rush is ending?
Local-first, private LLMs for instance.