Your tl;dr appears to be missing some important data. You can have an opinion but please don’t represent it as an accurate summary.

Things you crucially missed:

• Less open than every other service available
• Bills itself as the most open
• Server side source code is MIA
• No model card available. Evaluations, risks, biases, guardrails and safety measures unclear.

Can you be more specific?

There are already several keyboards that can handle text to speech without sending your data to the internet. FUTO Voice Input comes with models preloaded. Transcribro does this and it’s open-source.

Why settle for worse?

To be fair, the article itself recommends it.

There seems to be something a little… off here. VP looks like it’s a tech demo for a patent held by another company.

The new VPN service is operated by the American company VP.NET LLC, which in turn is owned by TCP IP Inc

And TCP IP (a terrible name for people who want to look it up) is exclusively proud of owning a patent it thinks is worth a lot of money. From its site:

We own the intellectual property that enables hardware-guaranteed network privacy—addressing a critical market gap worth $562 billion by 2032.

To me, it sounds like the CEO is trying to sell the company itself as a product to a larger investor. And that other privacy considerations, like jurisdiction, never factored into this.

Then I got to this part of the article, which seems to confirm those suspicions.

The idea to use SGX as a privacy shield comes from Andrew Lee, the chief privacy architect at VP.net. As the founder of Private Internet Access, which he sold to Kape a few years ago, Lee has a long history in the VPN space. However, he believes this new concept is a breakthrough.

So this company is run by somebody who sold out before.

what I would give to be you