this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
159 points (76.1% liked)

Selfhosted

63336 readers
555 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
159
Is anyone self-hosting their own AI? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 week ago by StateMachine@lemmy.zip to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
190 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Does anyone run their own AI service?

If so,

Which one?

What hardware?

Do you have a way to access it from outside or from a phone?

And, if you're open to sharing, what do you do with it?

I know AI-enabling hardware is insanely expensive right now, but some of the smaller (<32GB) more efficient models (think deepseek- or qwen-based) don't absolutely need specialized hardware to run and perform well enough for many purposes.

I am so aware of the absolutely abysmal privacy practices of basically all AI companies that I'm not comfortable using them to help me with web searches and the such, because there's no way that all this information won't be going into a profile. This makes me want to have my own "helper" service.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I agree with you for common CLIs that the model will natural have in its training set, but when building your own CLI it seems like the self-documenting nature and progressive disclosure of MCP would have a huge advantage.
With a cli you don't have the prefix cost, but your agent also doesn't know that the tool exists, what it's for, how to use it, etc. once you give it that information, then you have the same issues with prefix cost, right? Changing tools does break the prefix cache, but changing tools is a thing you can do. You can't change (model awareness of) CLI, and if you could then it'd also break the prefix cache, or you'd have tool instructions scattered throughout the context without structure.
Dumping to file is a harness thing, not a MCP thing. A harness will do the same with large terminal outputs.
Likewise setting up a new CLI can be complicated. I never see an agent try to install an mcp, but I also don't typically see it try to install a new CLI.

I don't see how mcp is any more a fixed set of tools than CLI is. It's just presented to the agent in a structured way, which is important for discovery and instruction following.

But yeah ease of chaining is certainly useful wrt CLI. That's a huge win for sure.