I usually don’t even understand the lingo they use. “Open-weighted” is the most recent one, then it usually goes down to specific “models” that everybody is supposed to know about.
These are my thoughts (I will stick to the vague “it” for now, but of course therein lies another question: “and how does all this apply to various specialised AIs”):
- Is it really feasible to run it 100% locally? I know there’s plenty of people with very powerful rigs indeed, but still. Or are 99% of these people really saying “it would, in theory, be possible to run that locally, therefore your concerns are invalid”?
- If yes to the previous: the software doesn’t come from nowhere and ultimately still relies on gas-turbine-powered datacenters and stolen IP and stolen personal data, no?
If what I wrote above is true, what exactly are people arguing when they say it’s still possible to use LLMs ethically or true to FOSS philosophy, because … ???
edit
Thanks to all who answered.
I guess it’s my fault for asking several questions in one, but this thread has attracted exactly the type of people I’m writing about; several even used the term “open-weighted models” without explaining it.
Asking to get arguments explained, I got more arguments instead.


I’m aware, but it’s a bad analogy when you dig into the logic. Continue!
If that’s the best argument against it you can make then that’s pretty sad.
Is stealing a car analogous to scraping copyrighted material?
Is stealing a car analogous to pirating media?
Is stealing a car analogous to reading the material and copying it?
What’s the exact angle you’re using here? Please elaborate and then we can continue!
It is taking something from somebody, without their permission, that they need. Yes. It’s analogous to taking copyrighted material and bypassing their rights to undermine their product. If they weren’t trying to distribute the material reproductions then it wouldn’t harm them. Taking away something they need does.
How do you think it wouldn’t hurt them?