[TheRealPomax]

> Cost-wise, it doesn't make sense for individuals to host a neural-network based grammar checker

Why?

We already do the same in the photography world in the form of apps like Topaz Labs' denoise/sharpen/gigapixel, as well as video enhance. Why would I care how many gigs of disk space and even a GPU might be required for an NN grammar checker if it literally makes back the money by improving the writing that influences my career? Hell, I can expense what is needed to run this if the payoff to my company is "the quality of work is better, and more secure".

[hombre_fatal]

Well, I think you'd first have to know the resource requirements, and it's reasonable that so few people would be willing/capable of running it that it doesn't make much business sense to focus on that as an option.

I'm certainly curious to know.

[omnicognate]

I'm not an expert and would appreciate being corrected if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression using a neural network after it has been trained typically requires relatively little computation and data. It's training it that takes the big compute and requires lots of data.

I think many services like Grammarly would be perfectly possible to implement without sending your data off device. There are just massive incentives not to.

[TheRealPomax]

Not really, that's an assumption based on a misunderstanding about how NN actually work.

While the training (e.g. the part necessary in order to even have a product) is incredibly resource intensive, and will yield a model that's typically hundreds of megabytes, actually applying the resultant model to new data takes milliseconds at most for plain text analysis.