I still don't understand why you're trying to shoehorn this into a narrative about being poor. To me it just comes across as a dismissal of the overall concern.
Sure, all of those dynamics may be slightly harsher if you're financially poor. But it's not like once someone reaches "not poor", time for self-actualization abounds. And from the other perspective, it's not like libre software is not taking off merely because the lack of adoption by poorer people. So what is your actual point from tying the topics together?
> I still don't understand why you're trying to shoehorn this into a narrative about being poor
Well, part of it was that a sibling reply[1] was already present, and the idea that "oh, we can all just run our own AI models at home" seemed ludicrously costly in both money, and time to me. It's not that I was trying to shoehorn it in as much as juxtapose it against what was already being stated.
> But it's not like once someone reaches "not poor", time for self-actualization abounds.
I have no idea why you you are interpreting the inverse of my statement that being poor makes this harder to mean that not being poor makes it easy or trivial, which is how it appears to me you're interpreting my statements.
Privacy is hard in the current climate. It takes time and effort or money to alleviate some of the privacy concerns, to different degrees depending on the specific concern. Those are all things the working poor have less of than other economic groups, so solutions that require them will likely be less used by them. That doesn't mean don't offer them, but we should keep that in mind when advocating for people switching to open source solutions, so we make sure the solutions actually solve the needs of the people intended to use them, and not just the needs of a subset of those people.
It would be a real shame if what I think is one of if not the best option for solving this problem in an egalitarian way failed to take into account the needs of that economic group and we actaully ended up with a solution that many are protected by, but disproportionally not the poor for multiple reasons. A world where 90% of people out of poverty are protected in some manner but only 50% of people in poverty are isn't necessarily better IMO, and may actually be much worse, since I'm not sure there will be much incentive to fix it at that point.
No, I wasn't very clear in my initial comment (and wasn't really going this deep), I just wanted people to consider that running your own LLM for your own needs isn't really feasible for most people and in a more general way than a reply to that person specifically might have communicated, and I was slightly inebriated when I wrote it, so didn't think it warranted much explanation.
Sure, all of those dynamics may be slightly harsher if you're financially poor. But it's not like once someone reaches "not poor", time for self-actualization abounds. And from the other perspective, it's not like libre software is not taking off merely because the lack of adoption by poorer people. So what is your actual point from tying the topics together?