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

MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

future.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#81

Post by nullc »

Jayakumark wrote: post #2

Was just talking about this on reddit like two days ago Instead of data going to models, we need models come to our data which is stored locally and stay locally. While there are many OSS for Loading personal data, they dont do images or videos. In the future everyone may get their own Model but for now tech is there but product/OSS is missing for everyone to get their own QLORA or RAG or Summarizer. Not just message…

Just having an archiver that gives you a tradition search over every webpage you've loaded-- forget the AI stuff, would be a major advance.

I don't know about everyone but a majority of searches are for stuff I've seen before, and they're often frustrated by things that have gone offline or are downranked by search engines (e.g. old documentation on HTTP only sites) or burred by SEO.

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#82

Post by timenova »

Jayakumark wrote: post #2

Was just talking about this on reddit like two days ago Instead of data going to models, we need models come to our data which is stored locally and stay locally. While there are many OSS for Loading personal data, they dont do images or videos. In the future everyone may get their own Model but for now tech is there but product/OSS is missing for everyone to get their own QLORA or RAG or Summarizer. Not just message…

I believe that's exactly what GitHub Copilot does. It first scans and indexes your entire codebase including dependencies (I think). So when it auto-completes, it heavily uses the context of your code, which actually makes Copilot so useful.

You're absolutely right about models coming to our data! If we could have Copilot-like intelligence, completely on-device, scanning all sorts of personal breadcrumbs like messages, browsing history, even webpage content, it would be a game-changer!

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#83

Post by nullc »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #68
smcleod wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a sensible step in the right direction IMO, (optional) features such as local, privacy respecting LLMs will help to augment peoples online research, bookmarking, contextual search etc.... It's important that we have Firefox working on such experiments otherwise as Google adds more of their privacy invading features to chrome / chromium it will likely impact negatively on peoples desire to find alterna…

Yeah, but maybe, if you are constantly losing market share... maybe you should work on things that appeals to a wider audience. Except if you have a trump card and intend to use it as a deus ex machina to suddenly show people you are THE browser, the way forward.

You don't gain market share by doing the same stuff the other FREE alternative does.

You gain market share by doing what they refused to do, no matter how much it's in the user's interest, because their business is stealing the user's data and yours isn't.

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#85

Post by nickthegreek »

voakbasda wrote: post #72
gardenhedge wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, nice domain. I'd work there for the name alone haha.

Am I cynical thinking the opposite? I can’t imagine they got that domain for a song. Spending a pile of cash on vanity such as that is a real turn off for me; it signals more flash than bang. Am I wrong to think this?

I’d be worried about the ability to be in relevant searches with a name so generic.

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#86

Post by mclightning »

nullc wrote: post #81
Jayakumark wrote: post #2

Was just talking about this on reddit like two days ago Instead of data going to models, we need models come to our data which is stored locally and stay locally. While there are many OSS for Loading personal data, they dont do images or videos. In the future everyone may get their own Model but for now tech is there but product/OSS is missing for everyone to get their own QLORA or RAG or Summarizer. Not just message…

Just having an archiver that gives you a tradition search over every webpage you've loaded-- forget the AI stuff, would be a major advance. I don't know about everyone but a majority of searches are for stuff I've seen before, and they're often frustrated by things that have gone offline or are downranked by search engines (e.g. old documentation on HTTP only sites) or burred by SEO.

you will be shocked when you try Rewind then...

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#87

Post by [deleted] »

Jayakumark wrote: post #2

Was just talking about this on reddit like two days ago Instead of data going to models, we need models come to our data which is stored locally and stay locally. While there are many OSS for Loading personal data, they dont do images or videos. In the future everyone may get their own Model but for now tech is there but product/OSS is missing for everyone to get their own QLORA or RAG or Summarizer. Not just message…

[deleted]

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#88

Post by diceduckmonk »

Jayakumark wrote: post #2

Was just talking about this on reddit like two days ago Instead of data going to models, we need models come to our data which is stored locally and stay locally. While there are many OSS for Loading personal data, they dont do images or videos. In the future everyone may get their own Model but for now tech is there but product/OSS is missing for everyone to get their own QLORA or RAG or Summarizer. Not just message…

Google already tried this 15 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Search_Appliance

Re: MemoryCache: Augmenting local AI with browser data

#90

Post by otteromkram »

nickthegreek wrote: post #85
voakbasda wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I cynical thinking the opposite? I can’t imagine they got that domain for a song. Spending a pile of cash on vanity such as that is a real turn off for me; it signals more flash than bang. Am I wrong to think this?

I’d be worried about the ability to be in relevant searches with a name so generic.

I've never ever ran a query for "software inc" before. They should be okay.

Plus, search engines usually catch up based in click-throughs, bounces, financial kickbacks (cough), too.

Searching for Go programming language stuff was a pain a few years back, but now engines have adapted to Go or Golang.

I don't use Google, so ymmv.

Post reply on HN