this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
114 points (91.3% liked)

Technology

2594 readers
1223 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

building and centralizing pii is indeed a privacy point of failure. what's not to understand?

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The use of local AI does not imply doing that, especially not the centralizing part. Even if some software does collect and store info locally (not inherent to the technology and anything with autosave already qualifies here), that is not close to as bad privacywise as filtering everything through a remote server, especially if there is some guarantee they won't just randomly start exfiltrating it, like being open source.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t care if your language model is “local-only” and runs on the user’s device. If it can build a profile of the user (regardless of accuracy) through their smartphone usage, that can and will be used against people.

emphasis mine from the text you quoted…

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't see how the possibility it's connected to some software system for profile building, is a reason to not care whether a language model is local only. The way things are worded here make it sound like this is just an intrinsic part of how LLMs work, but it just isn't. The model still just does text prediction, any "memory" features are bolted on.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because these are often sold with profile building features, for example, recall. Recall is sold as "local only" with profile building features. So it continues to be centralized pii that is a point of failure. As the quote says, as i said.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Even with Recall, a hypothetical non-local equivalent would be significantly worse. Whether Microsoft actually has your data or not obviously matters. Most conceivable software that uses local AI wouldn't need any kind of profile building anyway, for instance that Firefox translation feature.

The thing that's frustrating to me here is the lack of acknowledgement that the main privacy problem with AI services is sending all queries to some company's server where they can do whatever they want with them.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

why do you care that someone didnt say it was worse enough? "x is a problem, if y is true then z is a problem" -> "why didnt you talk about x"

silly.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 18 hours ago

What's basically being said is, making an AI powered software local-only doesn't make a difference and doesn't matter. But that's not true, and the arguments for that don't seem coherent.

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

the point is that making it local-only is not significantly better. it does not solve a major problem.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

So you don't think collection of user data is a meaningful privacy problem here? How does that work?

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

it is, and that is still happening.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Software that is designed not to send your data over the internet doesn't collect your data. That's what local-only means. If it does send your data over the internet, then it isn't local-only. How is it still happening?

[–] ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

it does. it locally aggregates, collects data about what you do on your computer across the days and weeks.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

But the company hasn't collected it, because it doesn't have it. Your computer has it. So long as it stays on your computer, it cannot harm your privacy. That's why there is such a big difference here; an actual massive loss of privacy that is guaranteed to be combined with everyone else's data and used against you, vs a potential risk of loss of privacy from someone gaining unauthorized access to your computer.