Firefox

21595 readers

48 users here now

/c/firefox

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.

Rules

1. Adhere to the instance rules

2. Be kind to one another

3. Communicate in a civil manner

Reporting

If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

golden_zealot@lemmy.ml

109

No AI* Here - A Response to Mozilla's Next Chapter - Waterfox Blog (www.waterfox.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by brianpeiris@lemmy.ca to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Undertaker@feddit.org 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Your post is really straining.
You don't get several points regarding monitoring. An evolving browser hast to be monitored for these anti features because new ones could be added at any time and thus has to be disabled immediately.

'Claim' to help is correct. While AI can have benefits, is is advertised as always helpful and has to be integrated into a browser. And that's two different points with the latter one being wrong. The opposite will be the case. People will lose their ability to think, analyze and decide by themselfes.

they’re building AI so deeply into Firefox that an opt-out mechanism becomes necessary in the first place

That’s such terrible logic. If something has an opt-out, it has to be “so deeply” built into it?

If you don't get it, I can't help you.
Article says: A causes B.
You argue: B causes A?
Your following examples are pointless unfitting as well.

Maybe you should take a deep breath and consider a factual view instead of pseudo arguments.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Well, the opt-out argument really doesn't make any sense. The fact there's an opt-out tells me nothing about how deeply a feature is embedded, if anything, it tells me the exact opposite of what the article argues: the only reason we can disable it is because it's not deeply integrated. If it was, there most likely wouldn't be an opt-out.

[–] Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, I see my error now. Thank you.