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

201–210 of 344 posts

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

#201

Post by charcircuit »

XorNot wrote: post #148
charcircuit wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not an ideal translation as it prioritizes round tripability over natural word choice or ordering.

Getting byte exact text isn't the point though: even if it's different, I as the original writer can still look at roundtripped text and evaluate that it has the same meaning. It's not a lossy process, and N round-trips should not lose any net meaning either. This isn't a possible test with many other applications.

How about a different edge case. It's easier to round trip successfully if your translation uses loan words. It can guarantee that it translates back to the same word. This metric would prefer using loan words even if they are not common in practice and would be awkward to use.

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

#202

Post by skylurk »

schoen wrote: post #126
jrjeksjd8d wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be more charitable to TFA, machine translation is a field where there aren't great alternatives and the downside is pretty limited. If something is in another language you don't read it at all. You can translate a bunch of documents and benchmark the result and demonstrate that the model doesn't completely change simple sentences. Another related area is OCR - there are sometimes mistakes, but it's tractable to cr…

There's an older tradition of rule-based machine translation. In these methods, someone really does understand exactly what the program does, in a detailed way; it's designed like other programs, according to someone's explicit understanding. There's still active research in this field; I have a friend who's very deep into it. The trouble is that statistical MT (the things that became neural net MT) started achieving…

Yep, some domains have no hard rules at all.

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.

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

#203

Post by liampulles »

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…

The local part is the important part here. If we get consumer level hardware that can run general LLM models, there we can actually monitor locally what goes in and what goes out, then it meets the privacy needs/wants of power users.

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

#204

Post by speedgoose »

vivzkestrel wrote: post #141

if kagi can make a search engine that charges users, why dont we have a 1$/month open source browser whose code can be verified but people pay to use monthly?

Would it be profitable without some heavy investments ?

https://kagi.com/stats

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

#205

Post by moffkalast »

zmmmmm wrote: post #171

I just want FireFox to focus on building an absolutely awesome plugin API that exposes as much power and flexibility as possible - with the best possible security sandbox and permissions model to go with it. Then everyone who wants AI can have it and those that don't .... don't.

I just want them to fix their goddamn rendering.

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

#207

Post by viraptor »

otikik wrote: post #206

> AI browsers are proliferating Are they, though? I get bombarded by AI ads very frequently and I have yet to see anything from those "AI browsers" mentioned on the article.

https://www.perplexity.ai/comet

https://chatgpt.com/atlas/

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/copilot-mode

https://www.genspark.ai/browser

https://www.operaneon.com/

https://www.diabrowser.com/

https://fellou.ai/

And many many more...

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

#208

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

charcircuit wrote: post #199
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example form field that a general language model could fill out better than a human + highly focussed deterministic algorithm?

Ecommerce checkout. Filling out my address, billing adress, and credit card information. Things like drop downs or different formatting can mess up the current basic ones, but it really shouldn't be that hard for AI to figure out how to fill out such information it knows about me into the form.

I think I've found those unreliable in the past, but much more reliable as time goes on. I can't really remember the last time an address or credit card info was mishandled by autofill. I get that addresses can be poorly defined, but for one you've entered yourself, that you just want to be re-entered, I don't see why we can't solve that problem without AI.

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

#209

Post by Maxion »

viraptor wrote: post #207
otikik wrote: post #206

> AI browsers are proliferating Are they, though? I get bombarded by AI ads very frequently and I have yet to see anything from those "AI browsers" mentioned on the article.

https://www.perplexity.ai/comet https://chatgpt.com/atlas/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/copilot-mode https://www.genspark.ai/browser https://www.operaneon.com/ https://www.diabrowser.com/ https://fellou.ai/ And many many more...

Do they have any users, though?

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

#210

Post by Orygin »

fsflover wrote: post #185
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.

The difference is that on Windows all unwanted features eventually become mandatory, with no way of switching them off. With Firefox, it never happens.

If you listen to the doomers in this thread, it will.

They "will" remove the option from settings, hide it in about:config, then later on remove it from there!

Of course none of that is true...

Post reply on HN