Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

waterfox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 344 posts

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#101

Post by charcircuit »

dawnerd wrote: post #24
recursive wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I have to fill a form for anything that matters, I'm doing it by hand. I don't even use the existing historical auto-complete stuff. It can fill stuff incorrectly. LLMs regularly get factual stuff wrong in mysterious ways when I engage with them as chat bots. It might be less effort to verify correctness than type in all the fields, but IMO there's less risk of missing or forgetting to check one of the fields.

I've had on so many cases autocomplete forms puts something in a field it shouldn't and messes up a submission. I've had it happen on travel documents that caused headaches later at the airport - especially if it fills in a hidden field because some bad web dev implemented it poorly.

It gets it wrong because the current "AI" for filling out forms is extremely weak and brittle compared to the general language models we have now.

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#102

Post by PunchyHamster »

kevmo314 wrote: post #29

> Machine learning technologies like the Bergamot translation project offer real, tangible utility. Bergamot is transparent in what it does (translate text locally, period), auditable (you can inspect the model and its behavior), and has clear, limited scope, even if the internal neural network logic isn’t strictly deterministic. This really weakens the point of the post. It strikes me as a: we just don't like those…

> but I don't understand the hate for LLMs.

It's mostly knee-jerk reaction from having AI forced upon us from every direction, not just the ones that make sense

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#103

Post by PunchyHamster »

derekdahmer wrote: post #92
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like when people defend Windows 11's nonsense by saying "you can disable or remove that stuff". Yes, you can. But you shouldn't have to, and I personally prefer to use tools which don't shove useless things into the tool because it's trendy.

How is this different from linux? People happily spend hours customizing defaults in their OS. It’s usually a point of praise for open source software.

Bad defaults are bad defaults, and "you can turn them off" is not a good excuse for bad defaults continuing to be bad defaults

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#104

Post by tdeck »

clueless wrote: post #5

This whole backlash to firefox wanting to introduce AI feels a little knee-jerky. We don't know if firefox might want to roll out their own locally hosted LLM model that then they plug into.. and if so, if would cut down on the majority of the knee jerk complaints. I think people want AI in the browser, they just don't want it to be the big-corp hosted AI... [Update]: as I posted below, sample use cases would include…

> We don't know if firefox might want to roll out their own locally hosted LLM model that then they plug into.. and if so, if would cut down on the majority of the knee jerk complaints

Personally I'd prefer if Firefox didn't ship with 20 gigs of model weights.

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#106

Post by SoftTalker »

htx80nerd wrote: post #89

I was a FF driver for ages and now making the switch to Chrome based browser simple because it's faster and websites are all tested against Chrome / Safari. I see both of these issues manifest IRL on a weekly basis. Why do I want to burn up CPU cycles and second using FF when Chromium is literally faster.

I use FF because of uBlock Origin, and also because it has built-in support for SOCKS5 proxy connections, which I use to access stuff at work over an ssh tunnel.

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#107

Post by pferde »

api wrote: post #18
clueless wrote: post #5

This whole backlash to firefox wanting to introduce AI feels a little knee-jerky. We don't know if firefox might want to roll out their own locally hosted LLM model that then they plug into.. and if so, if would cut down on the majority of the knee jerk complaints. I think people want AI in the browser, they just don't want it to be the big-corp hosted AI... [Update]: as I posted below, sample use cases would include…

We're still in bubble-period hyper-polarized discourse: "shoehorn AI into absolutely everything and ram it down your throat" vs "all AI is bad and evil and destroying the world."

The former is a cause, the latter an effect of it.

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#108

Post by webstrand »

SoftTalker wrote: post #106
htx80nerd wrote: post #89

I was a FF driver for ages and now making the switch to Chrome based browser simple because it's faster and websites are all tested against Chrome / Safari. I see both of these issues manifest IRL on a weekly basis. Why do I want to burn up CPU cycles and second using FF when Chromium is literally faster.

I use FF because of uBlock Origin, and also because it has built-in support for SOCKS5 proxy connections, which I use to access stuff at work over an ssh tunnel.

Yeah per-tab container socks5 is a killer feature I use every day.

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#109

Post by a24j »

Qem wrote: post #51
almosthere wrote: post #2

I do think dipping your toes into the future is worth it. If it turns out the LLM is trying to kill us by cancelling our meetings and emailing people that we're crazy that would suck. But I don't think this is any more dangerous than giving people a browser in the first place. They have already done enough to shoot themselves in the foot enough.

> If it turns out the LLM is trying to kill us by cancelling our meetings and emailing people that we're crazy that would suck. It's more likely it will try to kill us by talking depressed people into suicide and providing virtual ersatz boyfriends/girlfriends to replace real human relationships, what is a functional equivalent to cyber-neutering, given people can't have children by dating LLMs.

Birth rates may fall for those who LLM made unemployable...

Re: No AI* Here – A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter

#110

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

Qem wrote: post #51
almosthere wrote: post #2

I do think dipping your toes into the future is worth it. If it turns out the LLM is trying to kill us by cancelling our meetings and emailing people that we're crazy that would suck. But I don't think this is any more dangerous than giving people a browser in the first place. They have already done enough to shoot themselves in the foot enough.

> If it turns out the LLM is trying to kill us by cancelling our meetings and emailing people that we're crazy that would suck. It's more likely it will try to kill us by talking depressed people into suicide and providing virtual ersatz boyfriends/girlfriends to replace real human relationships, what is a functional equivalent to cyber-neutering, given people can't have children by dating LLMs.

Just checking but… what if instead of cruel natural selection, we’ve largely eliminated threats like predators and starvation… but still by either necessity or accident are presented with a less cruel more subtle filter?
Post reply on HN