Whats wrong with deep speech?
DeepSpeech is too large to run as a browser extension.
They appear to be running it against both Google and their own DeepSpeech instance then sending both results back in the client's telemetry?
Firefox Voice
51–60 of 166 posts
Re: Firefox Voice
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just pushed an update on android on me that disabled all addons except uBO because they don't support them yet, a few hours ago. That was the last straw that broke the camels back for me, after using FF since 1.0. Just rm -rf'd my firefox profile on my desktop a few minutes ago. I've defended them for a long time even if I didn't agree with everything they did, but they're so completely off the rails, enough is…
I'm guessing you are using the beta or nightly channel. Am I correct?
No, stable. Oh, and they decided about:config is off-limits too for stable users.
Re: Firefox Voice
#53I don't understand the utility of it. Yes, I can see how this might be considered cool and hip, but.. which my problem as a user does it solve, exactly?
Speech-based control is almost mandatory for people with various disabilities (the blind, those with hand-movement problems/disabilities) and the elderly, a huge chunk of the population.
Re: Firefox Voice
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
What browser are you going to use now? Any tips?
Switched over to Brave, as they have extensions on mobile cooking with POC videos on twitter. Hopefully they can accelerate it a bit. I think the HN crowd doesn't like brave though, idk, I do. IMO a lot of shit they get flak for are people not actually understanding. Like no, they don't replace ads on websites without their consent, or at least that's what they say.
So, because Firefox on your phone doesn't have X, you deleted it everywhere and installed a browser that... also doesn't have X?
FWIW This is one of the symmetries when we have to do policy shifts like TLS 1.0 deprecation. Even though every major browser will implement the policy and has announced that, some fraction of users will feel "betrayed" and switch from one browser implementing the policy to another browser also implementing the policy.
It's worse if you have defectors (e.g. back when Microsoft had Internet Explorer you could rely on IE being last to actually implement even if it had previously announced a timeline right in the middle of the ballpark, customers would push back and somewhere a Microsoft exec decides that hey, making a customer happy is more important than security) but it happens even for a more or less simultaneous policy change.
Guaranteed some CAs will lose customers over Apple's 398 day certificate expiry policy, even though it affects every CA equally at the same moment.
Re: Firefox Voice
#55Had to read the privacy policy to see they use Google.
>We share your audio recording with Google Cloud’s speech-to-text service to assist us in processing and carrying out your commands. Audio recordings are shared without personally identifiable metadata, and we’ve instructed Google’s service not to retain the audio or transcript associated with a command after it processes the command
Re: Firefox Voice
#56Had to read the privacy policy to see they use Google. >We share your audio recording with Google Cloud’s speech-to-text service to assist us in processing and carrying out your commands. Audio recordings are shared without personally identifiable metadata, and we’ve instructed Google’s service not to retain the audio or transcript associated with a command after it processes the command
It's in the FAQ section of the page under "How is my audio processed?"
Re: Firefox Voice
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switched over to Brave, as they have extensions on mobile cooking with POC videos on twitter. Hopefully they can accelerate it a bit. I think the HN crowd doesn't like brave though, idk, I do. IMO a lot of shit they get flak for are people not actually understanding. Like no, they don't replace ads on websites without their consent, or at least that's what they say.
So, because Firefox on your phone doesn't have X, you deleted it everywhere and installed a browser that... also doesn't have X? FWIW This is one of the symmetries when we have to do policy shifts like TLS 1.0 deprecation. Even though every major browser will implement the policy and has announced that, some fraction of users will feel "betrayed" and switch from one browser implementing the policy to another browser…
> So, because Firefox on your phone doesn't have X, you deleted it everywhere and installed a browser that... also doesn't have X?
No, because Firefox on my phone has removed X, I'm switchting to a browser that's getting X, and where the time-line isn't "we dunno lul". Maybe Brave doesn't hit their timeline, but Mozilla doesn't have one and I have no idea when my stuff will start working again. Until Brave Mobile has extension support I've downgraded my FF on mobile to the EOL version.
But as I said, it was the last straw that broke the camels back, I do not consider Mozilla to be trustworthy anymore, and this was just the latest in a series of issues.
I don't see how this is in any way similar to TLS 1.0 deprecation, because sites should have upgraded. There's nothing extension authors could have done. This is fully Mozilla dropping the ball (once again).
Re: Firefox Voice
#58[deleted]
Re: Firefox Voice
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just pushed an update on android on me that disabled all addons except uBO because they don't support them yet, a few hours ago. That was the last straw that broke the camels back for me, after using FF since 1.0. Just rm -rf'd my firefox profile on my desktop a few minutes ago. I've defended them for a long time even if I didn't agree with everything they did, but they're so completely off the rails, enough is…
I'm guessing you are using the beta or nightly channel. Am I correct?
Nightly has been this way for quite a while now.
Re: Firefox Voice
#60I've looked into open source voice assistants before. I found mycroft, Jarvis and a few others, but either got bogged down in dependencies or configuration. Many supported shipping your data to Google or Amazon if you configured it, or an open source voice recognition tool.
I hate this idea that our voice has to be shipped somewhere to be processed. I remember a lot of the speech-to-text tools in the early 2000s weren't all that great (they needed a lot of training), but why haven't we been able to advance on-device processing? Why is everything done in "the cloud."
So the only way to semi-accurately do voice recognition is to source algorithms that re-train off of millions of people? We have processors in our desktops and laptops that dwarf that compute power by leaps and bounds. We should be looking to Star Trek TNG level voice processing, on each individual device, without some central mainframe.
But marketing, advertising revenue, data mining, free (as in beer) software that pumps your data like an oil rig, efficiency in data centre (cloud) design .. all these factors have led to these powerful little Intel/ARM/Ryzen chips to be nothing more than thin clients when they're not playing games.
If Mozilla really wanted to make something amazing and in the spirit of Firefox, give us an experiment where voice processing is done on our devices. Even if it meant I needed to download a 230GB data set, I'd gladly do it, if it could remotely help in getting away from these data silos.