Probably because they knew it’d devolve into stupid comments like yours. Honestly what were you trying to achieve by just baselessly calling someone a Mozilla shill?
But for anybody curious, the “AI” that Mozilla will be implementing is entirely optional, trained on open source datasets that have been ethically sourced, works entirely offline, is run locally, and doesn’t send your personal info to Mozilla.
It will be used for things like better offline translation, finding alternate sources for articles if you want to find them, spotting fake reviews, as well as accessibility features like a better screen reader and image descriptions for images without a manually added description tag.
Personally my issues with AI are pretty much entirely related to stealing training data, and using AI as an excuse to push more ads and scrape more userdata. That’s not the case here, and this should not be treated like Google/MS’s AI features.
I’m curious, what exactly are your issues with the AI implementations the poster above you mentioned?
Because to me, they seem like very specific usecases where they actually offer benefits. It doesn’t seem like someone just went “everyone is doing ai… Let’s slap ai on Firefox so we stay one of the cool kids!”.
Example: I live in a country where I don’t speak the language. Instead of using a plugin for Firefox which translates e.g. government sites by sending them to Google translate, FF has been handling this locally for a couple of months now. Seems like a win to me.
Similarly, I imagine that vision impaired folks will receive a real benefit by not having to deal with the way-too-large number of websites not providing alt tags for images.
If (yes, I know, big IF) the models FF ships are indeed ethically trained and run fully locally… Then I kinda don’t get the issue
Probably because they knew it’d devolve into stupid comments like yours. Honestly what were you trying to achieve by just baselessly calling someone a Mozilla shill?
But for anybody curious, the “AI” that Mozilla will be implementing is entirely optional, trained on open source datasets that have been ethically sourced, works entirely offline, is run locally, and doesn’t send your personal info to Mozilla.
It will be used for things like better offline translation, finding alternate sources for articles if you want to find them, spotting fake reviews, as well as accessibility features like a better screen reader and image descriptions for images without a manually added description tag.
Personally my issues with AI are pretty much entirely related to stealing training data, and using AI as an excuse to push more ads and scrape more userdata. That’s not the case here, and this should not be treated like Google/MS’s AI features.
Removed by mod
(Not the person you responded to)
I’m curious, what exactly are your issues with the AI implementations the poster above you mentioned?
Because to me, they seem like very specific usecases where they actually offer benefits. It doesn’t seem like someone just went “everyone is doing ai… Let’s slap ai on Firefox so we stay one of the cool kids!”.
Example: I live in a country where I don’t speak the language. Instead of using a plugin for Firefox which translates e.g. government sites by sending them to Google translate, FF has been handling this locally for a couple of months now. Seems like a win to me.
Similarly, I imagine that vision impaired folks will receive a real benefit by not having to deal with the way-too-large number of websites not providing alt tags for images.
If (yes, I know, big IF) the models FF ships are indeed ethically trained and run fully locally… Then I kinda don’t get the issue