There are trade offs. ISP effectively is like driving on a highway, everyone can see where you are going but not what is inside the car. Id like these AI chats to be the same but they are not.
LLMs aren't email or file storage. AI labs aren't just shuttling bytes around, they're interpreting those bytes and taking action based on them. These models _already_ react viscerally in response to users saying disturbing things: the only practical difference is the ability (or obligation) for the model to escalate that concern. I'm not sure the ethics we hold AI companies to should be different than if a human being was typing out the responses.
Privacy is obviously hugely important, but this isn't the government surveiling every message. It's companies having an obligation to flag real, credible threats according to the law, which is a very different problem space.
AI companies have no accountability as proven by the hugging face incident. And if they did, it would be the same old LLC non person taking ownership with a big slap on the wrist.
You are also wrong again that this literally is the gov surveying every message just like it is with them looking at your texts or google search. E2e encrypted messaging is hated because it cant be automatically surveyed. The idea it needs to be for law does not hold up as it doesnt for your human examples either.
I get the attempt here for nuance but still just, no.
People. Humans. We have got to have accountability. Once local llms are closer in capability to what people generally need and Apple has a local secure version of that, it is back to the e2e encryption and gov wanting backdoors arg again.
Almost all of these arguments boil back down to the “if you dont have anything to hide…” which id hope on hn we know is dangerous
In this example there was a real human who reviewed the prompts that were flagged by the model. I can't agree that a model flagging something concerning to a human is worse than a human reviewing absolutely everything.
> AI companies have no accountability as proven by the hugging face incident.
This is already a problem with human systems. See: Vaastamo
Moreover, that's the whole point. You're arguing against accountability. If some kid tells ChatGPT he's going to shoot up his school, and then does, I feel strongly that OpenAI could and should have done something. I do not believe OAI is absolved of responsibility when it's clear they could have prevented death.
> E2e encrypted messaging is hated because it cant be automatically surveyed. The idea it needs to be for law does not hold up as it doesnt for your human examples either.
Your argument contradicts itself. There's nothing that allows a nation state to access an LLM back end but not a system designed for humans to interact.
> Almost all of these arguments boil back down to the “if you dont have anything to hide…” which id hope on hn we know is dangerous
That's not it at all. Your arguments are promised on the idea that messages sent to a third party should be treated specially because there's no human involved.
You might disagree with the idea that uploading CSAM to Adobe shouldn't result in a cop at your door, but you're compelling a group of people to operate software on your illegal content. It's not a dumb file store, it's doing work. LLMs are no different.
This has nothing to do with local models. There's no overlap in what using a service with a ToS implies compared to what you do on your own hardware. If print photos at CVS versus at home in a dark room, those are two very different situations with different expectations.