I’m a big proponent of self-hosting, right to repair, and rolling your own whatever when you can. That probably started as teenage rebellion that got baked in - I was lucky enough to read both Walden and The Hobbit during a week-long cyclone lockdown several decades ago - but I suspect there’s a non-trivial overlap between that space and privacy-minded people in general.

My endgame is a self-sufficient intranet for myself and family: if the net goes down tomorrow, we’d barely notice.

I also use LLMs as a tool. True self-hosted equivalence to state-of-the-art models is still an expensive proposition, so like many, I use cloud-based tools like Claude or Codex for domain-specific heavy lifting - mostly coding. Not apologising for it; I think it’s a reasonable trade-off while local hardware catches up.

That context is just to establish where I’m coming from when I say this caught my attention today:

https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14328960-identity-verification-on-claude

To be accurate about what it actually says: this isn’t a blanket “show us your passport to use Claude.” Not yet.

The policy as written is narrower than it might first appear.

My concern isn’t what it says - it’s that the precedent now exists. OAI will do doubt follow suite.

Scope creep is a documented pattern with this kind of thing, and “we only use it for X” describes current intent, not a structural constraint.

Given the nature of this community, figured it was worth flagging.

  • lsjw96kxs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Thanks for the pointers. For the hardware, I have a 9070 XT with 16 Gb of VRAM. It’s sure that it can be very expensive. As I only do this as a hobby, I don’t want to pay that amount of money. I’m okay with having a slow llm as it wouldn’t be a tool I’d use often. I prefer to try doing things on my own and use the ai to help for little tasks first, such as checking why this one line of code didn’t want to work correctly or things like that.