This applies to a lot of services. Only expose something publicly if the public need to access it, and make sure it's properly secured. If it's just for you or your family (or friends) to use, use a peer-to-peer / mesh VPN like Tailscale.

I mean, the article is talking about providing public inbound access, rather than having the software go outbound.

I suspect that in some cases, people just aren't aware that they are providing access to the world, and it's unintentional. Or maybe they just don't know how to set up a VPN or SSH tunnel or some kind of authenticated reverse proxy or something like that, and want to provide public access for remote use from, say, a phone or laptop or something, which is a legit use case.

ollama targets being easy to set up. I do kinda think that there's an argument that maybe it should try to facilitate configuration for that setup, even though it expands the scope of what they're doing, since I figure that there are probably a lot of people without a lot of, say, networking familiarity who just want to play with local LLMs setting these up.

EDIT: I do kind of think that there's a good argument that the consumer router situation plus personal firewall situation is kind of not good today. Like, "I want to have a computer at my house that I want to access remotely via some secure, authenticated mechanism without dicking it up via misconfiguration" is something that people understandably want to do and should be more straightforward.

I mean, we did it with Bluetooth, did a consumer-friendly way to establish secure communication over insecure airwaves. We don't really have that for accessing hardware remotely via the Internet.