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

231–240 of 344 posts

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

#231

Post by johnnyanmac »

figmert wrote: post #127
tdeck wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside: Does anyone actually use summarization features? I've never once been tempted to "summarize" because when I read something I either want to read the entire thing, or look for something specific. Things I want summarized, like academic papers, already have an abstract or a synopsis.

You mean you don't summarize those terrible articles you happen to come across and you're a little intrigued, hoping that there's some substance, and then you read, and it just repeats the same thing over and over again with different wording? Anyway, I sometimes still give them the benefit of the doubt, and end up doing a summary. Often they get summarized into 1 or 2 sentences.

No, not really. I don't even know how to really respond to this but maybe

1. I don't read "terrible articles". I can skim an article and figure if something I'm interested in.

2. I actually do read terrible articles and I have terrible taste

3. Any "summarization" I do that isn't from my direct reading is evaluated by the discussion around it. Though nowadays that's more and more spotty.

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

#232

Post by nazgul17 »

yunohn wrote: post #219
MrAlex94 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that it’s fear mongering. Have we not had numerous articles on HN about data exfiltration in recent memory? Why would an LLM that is in the drivers seat of a browser (not talking about current feature status in Firefox wrt to sanitised data being interacted with) not have the same pitfalls? Seems as if we’d be 3 for 3 in the “agents rule of 2” in the context of the web and a browser? > [A] An agent can pro…

I believe you are conflating multiple concepts to prove a flaky point. Again, unless your agent has access to a function that exfiltrates data, it is impossible for it to do so. Literally! You do not need to provide any tools to an LLM that summarizes or translates websites, manages your open tabs, etc. This can be done fully locally in a sandbox. Linking to simonw does not make your argument valid. He makes some gre…

Thinking aloud, but couldn't someone create a website with some malicious text that, when quoted in a prompt, convinces the LLM to expose certain private data to the web page, and couldn't the webpage send that data to a third party, without the need for the LLM to do so?

This is probably possible to mitigate, but I fear what people more creative, motivated and technically adept could come up with.

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

#233

Post by johnnyanmac »

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…

>I think people want AI in the browser

I don't. And the whole idea of Firefox's marketing is that it won't force things on me. Ofc course om frustrated. My core browser should serve pages and manage said pages. Anything else should be an option.

I'm beyond tired of being told my preferences, especially by people with incentives to extract money out of me.

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

#234

Post by GTP »

v3xro wrote: post #193
onion2k wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and demonstrate that the model doesn't completely change simple sentences A nefarious model would work that way though. The owner wouldn't want it to be obvious. It'd only change the meaning of some sentences some of the time, but enough to nudge the user's understanding of the translated text to something that the model owner wants. For example, imagine a model that detects the sentiment of text about Russian milita…

That's not a technical problem though is it? I don't see legal scenarios where unverified machine translation is acceptable - you need to get a certified translator to sign off on any translations and I also don't see how changing that would be a good thing.

I think the point here is that, while such a translation wouldn't be admissible in court, many of us already used machine translation to read some legal agreement in a language we don't know.

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

#235

Post by johnnyanmac »

Orygin wrote: post #225
nottorp wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's plausible because the team working on the settings screen will be reassigned to the "AI".

That's just doom saying at this point.

Mozilla hasn't had the benefit of the doubt for quite a while here. This isn't just one small kerfuffle coming out of nowhere.

They say trust takes a lifetime to build and seconds to break ". We're years into it at this point.

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

#236

Post by johnnyanmac »

Orygin wrote: post #213
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?

Paying to get a browser fork with less features? At that point, just pay $1 to Mozilla for firefox instead..

If they support it and have an incentive to listen to their customers and not shareholders, gladly. We can't keep using those logic of being afraid to invest then be mad when companies find someone who will.

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

#237

Post by johnnyanmac »

zavec wrote: post #23

I guess it's nice for non-technical people who don't know how to use `about:config` but beyond that I don't really see the need. Hopefully adding that extra layer of indirection doesn't mean the users will have to wait too long for security patches.

about:config is a cat and mouse game, and I don't want to reconfigure my settings everytime Firefox updates. That's just hostile user design.

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

#238

Post by lproven »

tdeck wrote: post #95
inkysigma wrote: post #32

> Large language models are something else entirely*. They are black boxes. You cannot audit them. You cannot truly understand what they do with your data. You cannot verify their behaviour. And Mozilla wants to put them at the heart of the browser and that doesn't sit well. Am I being overly critical here or is this kind of a silly position to have right after talking about how neural machine translation is okay? Ma…

Aside: Does anyone actually use summarization features? I've never once been tempted to "summarize" because when I read something I either want to read the entire thing, or look for something specific. Things I want summarized, like academic papers, already have an abstract or a synopsis.

No, because an LLM cannot summarise. It can only shorten which is not the same.

Citation: https://ea.rna.nl/2024/05/27/when-chatgpt-summarises-it-actu...

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

#239

Post by lproven »

_heimdall wrote: post #77
kbelder wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like using your turn signal even when you know there's nobody around you. Politeness is a habit you don't want to break.

That's an interesting example to use. I only use turn signals when there are other cars around that would need the indication. I don't view a turn signal as politeness, its a safety tool to let others know what I'm about to. I do also find that only using a turn signal when others are around is a good reinforcement to always be aware of my surroundings. I feel like a jerk when I don't use one and realize there was so…

> I only use turn signals when there are other cars around that would need the indication.

That is a very bad habit and you should change it.

You are not only signalling to other cars. You are also signalling to other road users: motorbikes, bicycles, pedestrians.

Your signal is more important to the other road users you are less likely to see.

Always ALWAYS indicate. Even if it's 3AM on an empty road 200 miles from the nearest human that you know of. Do it anyway. You are not doing it to other cars. You are doing it to the world in general.

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

#240

Post by lproven »

_heimdall wrote: post #230
chillfox wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By not signaling you are robbing others on the road the opportunity to avoid a potential accident should you not have seen them. It's maximum selfish fuck everyone else asshole behavior.

Did you read any of my comments? I signal when anyone is around and don't signal when there is no one to notify of my upcoming turn.

I read them all. I am especially amazed by the comment that you used to ride motorcycles and assumed you were not seen -- which is a good practice.

The point of indicating is that it's even more important to the people you didn't notice.

Post reply on HN