Security team flagged our AI usage and I did a real evaluation. Here’s the short version: the gap between what tools claim and what they can technically guarantee is much wider than I expected, and almost nothing on the market addresses it properly. Every mainstream tool offers roughly the same package: no training on your data, encryption in transit, session deletion after some period, that’s a contractual promise about intent. It says nothing about whether engineers can technically access your data, what happens in a breach, or what changes after an acquisition. “We won’t look” and “we can’t look” are not the same sentence. The technical version of private AI uses trusted execution environments, hardware-secured enclaves where data is processed in isolation that even the provider’s own infrastructure can’t read, with cryptographic attestation you can verify proving the right code ran. That’s a different category of claim entirely, there is a few I found where there’s real hardware-level backing like tinfoil, venice and phala, liked phala’s infrastructure more with cryptographic attestation. The application layer on top of it is still catching up to the UX polish people are used to from the big tools, which is the depressing part. There is really few options at user level worth using, most are just enterprise level and not very friendly user but phala is a good option even user level. submitted by /u/Justin_3486
Originally posted by u/Justin_3486 on r/ArtificialInteligence