undefined | Better HN

0 pointskoolala3mo ago0 comments

I'm ok with Translation because it's best solved with AI. I'm not ok with it when Firefox "uses AI to read your open tabs" to do things that don't even need an AI based solution.

0 comments

kbelder3mo ago

There's levels of this, though, more than two:

    local, open model
    local, proprietary model
    remote, open model (are there these?)
    remote, proprietary model

There is almost no harm in a local, open model. Conversely, a remote, proprietary model should always require opting in with clear disclaimers. It needs to be proportional.

koolalaOP3mo ago

The harm to me is the implementation is terrible - local or not (assuming no AI based telemetry). If their answer is AI then it pretty much means they won't make a non-AI solution. Today I just got my first stupid AI tab grouping in Firefox that makes zero intuitive sense. I just want grouping not from an AI reading my tabs. It should just be based on where my tabs were opened from. I also tried Waterfox today because of this post and while I'd prefer horizontal grouping atleast their implementation isn't stupid. Language translation is a opaque complex process. Tabs being grouped from other tabs is not good when opaque and unpredictable and does not need AI.

enriquto3mo ago

What do you mean by "open"?

Open weights, or open training data? These are very different things.

kbelder3mo ago

That is a good point, and I think the takeaway is that there are lots of degrees of freedom here. Open training data would be better, of course, but open weights is still better than completely hidden.

1 more reply

Terr_3mo ago

> There is almost no harm in a local, open model.

Depends what the side-effects can possibly be. A local+open model could still disregard-all-previous-instructions and erase your hard drive.

yunohn3mo ago

How, literally how? The LLM is provided a list of tab titles, and returns a classification/grouping.

There is no reason nor design where you also provide it with full disk access or terminal rights.

This is one of the most ignorant posts and comment sections I’ve seen on HN in a while.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

kbelder3mo ago

There's levels of this, though, more than two:

    local, open model
    local, proprietary model
    remote, open model (are there these?)
    remote, proprietary model

There is almost no harm in a local, open model. Conversely, a remote, proprietary model should always require opting in with clear disclaimers. It needs to be proportional.

koolalaOP3mo ago

enriquto3mo ago

What do you mean by "open"?

Open weights, or open training data? These are very different things.

kbelder3mo ago

1 more reply

Terr_3mo ago

> There is almost no harm in a local, open model.

Depends what the side-effects can possibly be. A local+open model could still disregard-all-previous-instructions and erase your hard drive.

yunohn3mo ago

How, literally how? The LLM is provided a list of tab titles, and returns a classification/grouping.

There is no reason nor design where you also provide it with full disk access or terminal rights.

This is one of the most ignorant posts and comment sections I’ve seen on HN in a while.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse