I dont think local agentic models address the ethical and environmental concerns I have with the training - but its better than the corporate offerings :)

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Hey guy/gal/genderfluid pal, the cat is out of the bag. Either we embrace it for what it can do in a much more sustainable way, or we let corpos redefine sustainable.

Is this a good use case? No. But most use cases, I’d rather have a local agent running on my own hardware being offset by solar, than using a corpo offering.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Please don't call me man :)

The cat is "out of the bag" on consuming meat and dairy, plenty of people manage to survive and thrive without em, without much effort at all. I'd personally rather use no LLM than use a local agentic model with poor ethics/environmental impact of its training, even if the latter is better than corpo offerings.

As I alluded to, I'm much happier to see people using local agentic models. Even more so if they happen to be something like Pleias' approach, with lots of transparency about the data they were trained on. There's still the environmental concerns behind the resources consumed for the training, but it is about as good as one could hope for at this point if one insists on using LLMs.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

As you wish, wasn’t meant as a gendered ident so apologies.

I’m actually not familiar with how much environmental damage is done by training vs using. My initial assumption was that training would be less, by many many factors, because it “happens once” while the usage is constant and scales with the number of users. But that is admittedly an assumption made out of ignorance.

And to be clear, I’m not really trying to tell you you’re wrong, just trying to make my position clear since Lemmy is very anti AI in general.