HN user

fbhabbed

131 karma
Posts3
Comments61
View on HN

Even the title of that Wikipedia page is misleading and choosen in a way that almost forces your opinion on this (you can't be against a regulation made for such a noble intent, can you?)

Why not just call the page Chat Control 2.0?

You will eventually get a canned AI made reply (just like all the canned AI mails they have received these days due to websites creating templates for them).

If this becomes a widespread way to bypass this, wouldn't they just pass a law to make Linux usage illegal unless you install some module?

I mean, look at all the geniuses saying "I'll just use a VPN" in response to the latest ID for age verification. A week later, the law was amended to also involve VPNs.

GPT5-Thinking if I need a precise answer with the least possible amount of mistakes.

GPT5-Pro is the real deal.

Gemini if I need creative insights and a pleasant talk, but this comes at the cost of more mistakes (and it's hella stubborn).

Hopefully Gemini 3.0 will fix this.

I see they just decided to become even more useless than they already are.

Except for the ransomware thing, or phishing mail writing, most of the uses listed there seems legit to me and a strong reason to pay for AI.

One of these is exactly preparing with mock interviews which is something I myself do a lot, or having step by step instructions to implement things for my personal projects that are not even public facing and that I can't be arsed to learn because it's not my job.

Long life to Local LLMs I guess

I don't think we would solve crime if we give up privacy. Who's the controller? Everyone can control everyone or is there a subset of people controlling everyone else?

If the latter, they'll be the ones committing crimes at this point. Not everyone, but some of them. Every large enough subset of humans contains people that will commit crimes at some point and I don't want them to have full power and accessibility on my entire life without a warrant.

While this is a very important issue, I think there is just another excuse to get rid of the only way left to achieve anonimity on the Internet, and this can only lead to bad things.

As the author admits, there's lots of good interests in keeping Tor a thing, and nothing good can come out from removing it.

Such people sharing illicit material should be investigated and prosecuted (with severe and appropriate court orders) through the ordinary means, but the author doesn't seem to have a good solution on hand, other than showing provocative questions like "why are we funding these Tor guys".

There's no single solution that they can implement TOR-side without breaking the whole point of the project. They won't implement any backdoor or similar bullshit, no matter what. There's no point in TOR if they do that. May as well disband the project.

https://www.reddit.com/r/localllama is your go-to place if you want a community of like minded people interested exactly in this.

TL:DR There's many ways to go about it.

Quick start?

Clone llama.cpp repo or download the .exe or main linux binary from the "Releases" on Github, on the right. If you care about security, do this in a virtual machine (unless you plan to only use unquantised safetensors).

Example syntax: ./llama.cpp/main -i -ins --color -c 0 --split-mode layer --keep -1 --top-p 40 --top-k 0.9 --min-p 0.02 --temp 2.0 --repeat_penalty 1.1 -n -1 --multiline-input -ngl 3 -m mixtral-8x7b-instruct-v0.1.Q8_0.gguf

In this example, I'm running Mixtral at quantisation Q8, with 3 layers offloaded to the GPU, for about 45GB RAM usage and 7GB VRAM (GPU) usage. To make sense of quants, this is the general rule: you pick the largest quant you can run with your RAM.

If you go look for TheBloke models, they all have a handy model card stating how much RAM each quantisation uses.

I tend to use GGUF versions, which run on CPU but can have some layers offloaded on GPU.

I definitely recommend reading the https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp documentation.

LLM development will proceed regardless in countries that don't give a damn about our vision of "copyright".

It doesn't matter if you think copyright makes sense or not. In 20 years, some country will have its own giant LLM trained on copyrighted material and use this to boost their competitive advantage and technological power and development, perhaps so much that the advantage will be tremendous, while we'll stay the underdogs because "my copyrights".

the only two downsides are: no battery, space

And not being able to use it on the couch, on the toilet, outdoors in your backyard, on a plane, on a train and so on.