Comment by sfRattan

Comment by sfRattan 2 days ago

Until the last few years, most features added to software I use haven't:

...had functionally nondeterminstic, unpredictable results in response to how I use them.

...written in long-form English text with confidence and no guarantee of factual accuracy.

...coaxed children into codependent pseudo-relationships with ML models or encouraged suicide.

AI isn't a new feature; it's a new category. And the people who don't understand why some of us don't want it everywhere don't understand that distinction, or else are financially motivated to ignore it and gaslight everyone about the categorical boundaries crossed.

I use LLMs and diffusion style image generators... Where I understand the model I've chosen, can control it locally, and have enough tacit knowledge to double check the outputs before I go ahead with something. I don't trust Mozilla to ensure any of those things anymore. They've long since burned that credibility.

NicuCalcea 2 days ago

Still, just don't use them? I have no interest in AI in my browser and have had no difficulty avoiding it in Firefox.

Reply View 1 reply

lenkite a day ago

That makes zero sense. How do you have no difficulty ? Are you going ahead and disabling like the below ? If not, then I am afraid you are hallucinating like an AI and not really "avoiding it" in Firefox. Doing the below also improves performance, memory consumption and battery life.

    about:config
    user_pref("browser.ml.enable", false); 
    user_pref("browser.ml.chat.enabled", false); 
    user_pref("browser.ml.chat.sidebar", false);
    user_pref("browser.ml.chat.menu", false); 
    user_pref("browser.ml.chat.page", false); 
    user_pref("extensions.ml.enabled", false); 
    user_pref("browser.ml.linkPreview.enabled", false);
    user_pref("browser.tabs.groups.smart.enabled", false); 
    user_pref("browser.tabs.groups.smart.userEnabled", false);
    user_pref("pdfjs.enableAltTextModelDownload", false); 
    user_pref("pdfjs.enableGuessAltText", false);

Reply View 0 replies

cdrini 2 days ago

> the people who don't understand why some of us don't want it everywhere don't understand that distinction, or else are financially motivated to ignore it and gaslight everyone about the categorical boundaries crossed.

This is such a common fallacy that I think it should be given a name. When you believe that the people who disagree with you must either be ignorant or malicious. Leaves no room for honest disagreement or discussion. Maybe the "dumb-or-evil" fallacy?

Reply View 4 replies

sfRattan a day ago

It's a specific case of the false dilemma, sure.
But, in life, when you meet enough AI evangelists, what was formally a logical fallacy becomes informally a useful, even necessary heuristic.

Reply View | 3 replies
- cdrini a day ago
  
  Perhaps; but I would argue talking to many AI evangelists is a form of selection bias. Which makes the false dichotomy conclusion reasonable given the inputs, but still inaccurate given reality.
  True, it's a form of false dichotomy, but I think this specific instance is particularly interesting in that it allows the holder to dehumanise their opponent to an extent, and justify lack of discussion. It's also an incredibly common conclusion in politics after people gain a somewhat superficial understanding of both sides. I wonder if it might play a key role in social polarization.
  For me the strongest arguments are the ones that can argue the opponent's side as effectively as the opponent, and then show why it's weak. And that feels entirely incompatible with a dumb-or-evil argument.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  sfRattan a day ago
  
  >I think this specific instance is particularly interesting in that it allows the holder to dehumanise their opponent to an extent, and justify lack of discussion.
  That's a wild take and a wild leap. For my own part, I see the failure or refusal to comprehend someone else's preferences, values, or boundaries as itself a profoundly human quality, even if it's a quality I don't love, rather than one which would cause me to see someone as less human.
  I will admit that, when there's enough nonsense money being thrown after a vaunted object, sensible discussion can feel pointless. Prudence goes deaf amid the din of hype.
  And yes, steelmanning can be highly persuasive, but not when premises are radically different enough between two parties. It's really a more productive tool to improve your model of someone else.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- Aeolun a day ago
  
  It’s kinda weird, because I have the exact same feeling about people who seem to categorically reject it based on what appear to be mostly emotions.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies

johncolanduoni 2 days ago

Maybe I’m using the wrong web browsers - mine have always had those problems (except that the pseudo-relationships were with real, horrifically bad people).

Reply View 0 replies